Re:FDA authorizes rapid, at-home coronavirus test
by ineedasername on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @08:53PM
(#25451385)
Yep, if we can distinguish between who it does and does not work as intended. How do you verify a false positive? By performing a better test, but then you have to do it for everyone and we're back to square one. However I agree with other comments that even with false results, it's still very useful, just that frequent testing won't necessarily overcome all false results.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:FDA authorizes rapid, at-home coronavirus test
by account42 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @06:06AM
(#25454482)
> but then you have to do it for everyone
Unless you are also worried about false negatives you only need to perfrom the better test on those that reported positive on the quicker test.
Re:FDA authorizes rapid, at-home coronavirus test
by ineedasername on Thursday December 17, 2020 @10:53AM
(#25456651)
Sure I'd be worried about false negatives. Identifying the infected to allow them to isolate is the reason for it. I'm not worried about false positives because there is little harm done in having someone isolate uneccessarily. Much more harm is possible by keeping an infected person, who now thinks they're fine, out in public.
Re:FDA authorizes rapid, at-home coronavirus test
by pas on Friday December 18, 2020 @03:54AM
(#25465170)
These assays are very skewed toward producing false positives.
Exactly for this reason.
It's not perfect. PCR can miss the early stages of the infection too.
These are just signals.
Luckily we know that viral load is the factor for transmission rate (infectiousness). So even if someone is (false) negative, but has symptoms, should self-quarantine.