2 ms·
This one should be far better than 30% because most pcr failure is due to poor swabbing. If the swab is fine then false neg is rather low.
by robk 6y ago
This one should be far better than 30% because most pcr failure is due to poor swabbing. If the swab is fine then false neg is rather low.
- yashap 6y agoFrom the article: > SalivaDirect is highly sensitive and yields similar outcomes as NP swabbing. Doesn’t sound far better? And really, when hyping up a new technology, if I hear “similar outcomes”, my BS detector says “a bit worse.” With NP swabs, the main issue doesn’t seem to be poor technique, it’s more that samples reasonably often don’t contain enough virus to be detected by the PCR test, unless you’re timing is really perfect (i.e. about 3 days after first spring symptoms). From my readings it’s not necessarily the collectors fault, there just didn’t happen to be high viral load in the part of the body when the sample was collected. Probably similar for saliva? Though I don’t really know.