Incorrect but also it is a bit more complicated that that:
The False negative rate is 1- sensitivity
The False positive rate is 1-specificity
No TGA approved RAT tests have a sensitivity of less than 80%. This is because the WHO minimum sensitivity for RAT is 80%.
For example Abbott PanBio is quoted to have a sensitivity of 98.1% and specificity 99.8
That means:
The false negative rate is 1-98.1% = 1.9% or 19 our of 1000 will be a False negative
The false positive rate is 1-0.998 = 0.002% or 2 per 1000 will be a False positive.
At worst any TGA RAT test False negative rate will be no worse than 20% (assuming the test is done properly)
See
here for the low down on sensitivity and specificity.
Now here is the catch and there is more... - the prevalence of the disease in the population affects the
predictive value of the test whatever the sensitivity and specificity
Look at how the
positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) change depending on the prevalence of disease in the community on Table 2 and Table 3 for the same test and the same sensitivity and specificity - the narrative provides the explanation.
The PPV and NPV are actually the important consideration when a test is used - but this depends on the prevalence of the disease in the community.