5 ms·
Edit: it seems the idea is to possibly catch asymptomatic people so they can self isolate (if they otherwise wouldn't) or tell their contacts to keep an eye out
by 609venezia 7y ago
Edit: it seems the idea is to possibly catch asymptomatic people so they can self isolate (if they otherwise wouldn't) or tell their contacts to keep an eye out
I'm skeptical of the value add when weighed against the risk of introducing unregulated / unverified medical tests with unknown false positive/negative rates during a crisis situation, but obviously folks disagree, and I'm sure I could be missing something.
- suyash 7y agoEither this is a genius hack (saving lives) or a genius scam!
- 609venezia 7y agoHow does it save lives? If someone took this test and popped positive, would it increase the likelihood of receiving effective treatment or of reducing transmission? I'm trying to figure out the value.
- adrianN 7y agoYou'd hope that someone with a positive test is more careful about isolating themselves and perhaps tells their contacts to do the same.
- c22 7y agoIt might reduce transmission if the patient chooses to self-isolate and otherwise would not have.
- harrisonjackson 7y agoIf the tests could be done on someone who is asymptomatic, then it could be hugely beneficial. For anyone already feeling sick... stay home and self-quarantine. If we could _just_ test everybody regardless of symptoms then we could quickly isolate people spreading it in ignorance. That is the main benefit I could reason out. Probably early detection and better planning as someone with it progresses, too.
- djannzjkzxn 7y agoThe best case scenario for controlling this epidemic is containment through contract tracing. That means we find people who have it, figure out who they got and from and gave it to, and get those people to quarantine. This strategy is failing in the US due to insufficient testing.
- opk 7y agoWe're past that stage. It's purely about flattening the curve so the health system can cope while protecting the the vulnerable. The official statistics have a lag in them due to only showing confirmed cases.
- opk 7y agoDepends on their accuracy. A positive illicit test will result in somewhat reduced transmission. A false negative in possibly significantly increased transmission. Also depends on whether you're testing suspected cases or merely hypochondriacs.
- puzzlingcaptcha 7y agoBesides, if you test someone and he tests negative, you should ideally keep him isolated for a few days and do the test again (cause he might have just caught the virus and be still below detection threshold). It seems impractical.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoIANAL, but it seems like a grey area. He's not passing his test off as a "real" test, dispensing any medication, or otherwise acting as a doctor. Put another way (and apologies in advance for the example): if the guy was into watersports and noticed somebody's urine tastes sweet, is it a crime to tell them it might be diabetes? What if somebody asks him to taste theirs?
- daedalus_f 7y agoI’m not sure why your getting down voted. It is irresponsible. This sort of thing is relatively easy to do for someone with the right background, but hard to do well. Aside from wasting reagents that could be potentially used by an actual diagnostic lab, some student running PCRs is going to get nowhere near acceptable test reliability. Those they falsely reassure will run around spreading it, and those they falsely diagnose will inappropriately self isolate. The more they test, the more accuracy matters.