'Reliable' tests?

[QuietRiot]

Some opinions here are pretty black and white on this, but I've been doing some research regarding testing these days as there's really a lot of moving parts and of course, I think it's too quick to pass judgement on this since this is a NOVEL virus and we are figuring things out along the way.

If you check out YouTube's Med Cram, a highly reputable source, check out Update 98 and it talks about home testing vs PCR testing...where apparently HOME testing with the paper strips are reliable when used frequently and in the context of testing for transmissibility. Like if you test your self 3 times a week vs once in a while with the $100 PCR testing. There's also the viral load to consider (Ct values) It's hard to put in a nutshell on here. The PCR tests detect RNA, whereas the at home , paper test test for antigens. The latter also isn't as sensitive, while the prior is much more sensitive and can even detect low viral loads.

But if you check out the video you'll understand. There is apparently some fine tuning that needs to be done.

Edited July 21, 2020 by QuietRiot

[snowboy91]

If the antigen test isn't as sensitive then it would stand to reason it's less reliable. But you're testing more frequently with the home test then it's not hard to see they could become more reliable simply from a probability point of view (since the odds of a false negative may be higher for one test, but the odds of say 6 false negatives in 2 weeks become pretty low). Not to mention you have tests at more points in time to see how things are evolving.

Despite drawbacks, the gold standard is still the PCR test from an accuracy point of view, which makes it unfortunate that folks in the US and many other countries have to pay so much for a test.