He also seems to have blocked me for reasons I don't know, and to have not read my post closely.

As I explained in the last of three posts, the point is not to put a probability on infection, it's to show that the eye condition is relevant to a posterior.

It should be obvious that the negative test goes into the prior. I suggested posterior values for priors of p=0.1 and p=0.01. If you think it's lower than p=0.01, I'd like to know what equipment you think they used, when—and in the post I encouraged you plug in your own numbers.