From 'instructions for use' of this test
Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.
Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions.
The SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is intended for use by trained clinical laboratory personnel specifically instructed and trained in the techniques of in vitro diagnostic procedures
cdn.website-editor.net/6f54caea7c6f4adfba8399428f3c0b0c/files/uploaded/Innova-SARS-Cov-2-Antigen-test-IFU.pdf
Yes, a cheap and easy to use screening test would be a marvelous tool to prevent the spread, but this test is totally unsuitable and was never intended for that task.
A claim that 'we could've beaten covid months ago' is wildly inaccurate and unhelpful.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 3:30,
Reply)
yes and no
It could be the case that these tests could have stopped covid in its tracks months ago. So not wildly inaccurate, but definitely speculative.. Or to put it another way, a guess. I probably should not have claimed that, but still it could be true. Because all they need to do is be good enough to hold r below 1. if r is held below 1 then covid goes away. Pretty much the same reasoning that if a vaccine is 50% effective it will beat the virus. But there are lots of unknowns here, not least of which is public co-operation. The quote from the instructions of use is not quite as black and white as it appears. Let me explain.
1) positive results do not rule out co-infection..
For getting covid r below 1 this is irrelevant.
2) Negative results do not rule out covid..
as I said above, if used by the entire population and acted upon regardless of false negatives, it should still hold r below 1.
3) use only by trained professionals..
This is put there for legal reasons, because tests like this in the USA fall into a weird grey area. They literally can't sell this test unless it's classed as a medicine. If it were not classed as a medicine, it would not need that part of the label. Put it this way, these tests are too be used in schools in the UK, probably by the staff - not professional, hopefully we'll see if it makes a difference.
regarding the validity of the claims I would say, this podcast shows some interesting and logical ideas, but should be taken with a pinch of salt as its really fuel for debate rather than a proven theory
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 10:33, Reply)
no you are
only joking. I guess you're just being argumentative for the sake of it, in any case maybe I am wrong about some aspect. But you imply that everything I said in the above statement is wrong? y / n
(, Mon 21 Dec 2020, 13:29, Reply)
