MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => COVID-19 => Topic started by: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 29, 2020, 03:39:13 PM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
It is incredibly depressing that we are six months into this and still can’t rely on a high level accuracy from the tests.
-
Wow, I'm very surprised!
You get your tests:
1. Cheap
2. Accurate
3. Fast
Pick two.
-
Remember, the original CDC test had 3 parts, but they elected to get rid of the part that kept coming back "inconclusive". Not blaming the CDC for this, just that this particular virus doesn't seem as clear and easy to detect as others.
Though, it probably spreads easier (duh), making the false positive/negative or inconclusive seem like more of a cluster F than they would with other viruses.
As an aside, mentioned this while sitting on a patio having food/drinks with my wife last night... On a whole, given the massive changes we've had to deal with since Jan, humankind has actually rolled with the changes well. I know there's a lot of WTF going on, but people are resilient, and life moves forward...
-
I tend to agree with Michael Mina, he has been an advocate for ‘useful’ testing. Cheap and detecting contagious is the priority over high sensitivity for a lot of reasons in the article. It makes sense—a better way.
That being said isn’t this type of test pretty standard around the world? It’s not the reason we are failing so miserably.
-
I tend to agree with Michael Mina, he has been an advocate for ‘useful’ testing. Cheap and detecting contagious is the priority over high sensitivity for a lot of reasons in the article. It makes sense—a better way.
That being said isn’t this type of test pretty standard around the world? It’s not the reason we are failing so miserably.
Yes, PCR testing for COVID is common around the world. However, since the testing is centralized in most places, public health authorities may know (maybe even dictate) the number of PCR cycles that are being used. If that is the case, public health officials would be able to make more well-informed decisions about the results. Here, we have dozens (hundreds?) of different test kits being used with differing ranges of cycles, making it virtually impossible for public health officials to make the nuanced decisions based on C.T. values, as Mina and Rasmussen mention in the article.
I couldn't determine from a Google search whether other countries are actually doing this, so I'd welcome others' contributions if they know. In any case, the incredulity expressed by Mina and Rasmussen, combined with the testing centralization elsewhere vs the wild-west testing here, leads me to suspect this might be a factor in our failure.