7 ms·

I'm glad the OP made the correct decision in this case and hope they get well soon. > the assumption I had a minor cold > the loss of smell was total Since th

by Osmium 6y ago

I'm glad the OP made the correct decision in this case and hope they get well soon. > the assumption I had a minor cold > the loss of smell was total Since there does seem to be a messaging problem about the reliability of testing, I think it's worth emphasizing: if someone has symptoms of COVID, they should proceed as-if they have COVID. CDC guidance[1] is to isolate if you have a positive test OR if you have symptoms. To do otherwise is to gamble with the health and lives of the people they meet, and the people those people meet, and so on. It may prove almost impossible to show who caught COVID from whom, but that doesn't mean that ignoring guidance won't lead to deaths. A statistical death is still the death of a real person, even if we can't put a name to them. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/isolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/is...

nilkn 6y ago
To be clear, the order of events was such that I did not have loss of smell/taste at the time of the rapid tests. There was no indication at that time of anything that wasn't completely consistent with and expected from a cold, and I even encountered resistance when I tried to get tested prior to the tell-tale loss-of-smell symptom appearing (hence the rapid tests only at that point). I had a mildly uncomfortable phone call with an urgent care center where they discouraged me from pursuing testing because they didn't think I had enough symptoms. I knew exactly from whom I had contracted whatever illness I had, and that person had also tested negative for COVID (upon further questioning, their test had also been a rapid one, and they too had not been informed of its unreliability for any negative determination).
- bigiain 6y ago
  > There was no indication at that time of anything that wasn't completely consistent with and expected from a cold Unfortunately, I think these days symptoms of "just a cold" are enough reason to self isolate for long enough to reliably get through the Covid incubation period - which locally (Sydney .au) has been reported to occasionally be as long as 10 days or more.
  - nilkn 6y ago
    I agree with you, and that's largely why I wanted to share my story -- to illustrate that even without any tell-tale symptoms and multiple negative test results, you can easily still have COVID.
    - Osmium 6y ago
      Thanks for sharing your story, it's useful to hear anecdotes. I also want to emphasize I was making a general comment and not intending a personal criticism. The points raised by bigiain and mxcrossb are well-made, "cold-like" symptoms are COVID symptoms, the loss of taste and smell only occurs in some cases. CDC has a full list of coronavirus symptoms[1]. I fear that many are flying, socializing etc. when they are actually symptomatic (e.g. headache, sore throat) because they consider these minor symptoms, or perhaps they can just "hope for the best", but the severity of the symptom doesn't change whether or not someone is symptomatic. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
  - mxcrossb 6y ago
    The USA currently has nine million active cases. I actually think at this point if you have cold symptoms it may be more likely you have covid than a common cold. (Though maybe someone has data in cold cases to clarify the cross over point)
    - timr 6y ago
      > The USA currently has nine million active cases. I actually think at this point if you have cold symptoms it may be more likely you have covid than a common cold. Your intuition is wildly off-base here. Nearly all of us catch at least one cold a year, mostly during the winter months. There are, quite literally, hundreds of millions of colds a year. There's also ~half a dozen viruses in circulation at any given time that cause cold-like symptoms, vs. one for SARS-CoV2.
      - vkou 6y ago
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The heck is the point of a test if not to confirm or rule out covid? He took two tests, came back negative and assumed his "cold or covid" symptoms were cold until he had reason to believe they were covid. Other than the tests sucking everything in the fact pattern is perfectly reasonable.
- echelon 6y ago
  Tests have false negatives. The problem isn't so much the test, but rather the public which isn't fully qualified to interpret the results. Biology and chemistry are complicated and messy. Sometimes signal is noisy or below the limit of detection.
  - dboreham 6y ago
    It's also subtle in that while false negatives are common, false positives are rare (very rare). But general public don't get that subtlty and assume "the test isn't reliable" so a positive means they're not infected. Source: numerous friends and relatives.
- Osmium 6y ago
  This is a fair question. Any test has a certain percentage of false positives and false negatives -- in fact, you can likely tune your ratio of false positives to false negatives depending on what your priority is. On a community level, the statistics from testing are essential for monitoring the spread of a disease, but on an individual level a test can still give an incorrect result, so shouldn't be the only factor when making decisions. For an individual, if they have a negative test AND no symptoms AND no contacts with known COVID-positive individuals, then they can proceed as-if they don't have COVID and take standard precautions. However, if they do have symptoms, then that might mean further testing is required. For anyone interested about testing, this graphic is essential: https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02661-2/d41586-020-02661-2_18385362.png https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02... It shows the difference in test efficacy for different tests (rapid antigen, PCR, antibody tests) as a function of time from symptom onset. Rapid antigen tests only have a narrow window of efficacy. If they come back positive, you likely have COVID, but if they come back negative you could still have COVID and could still be contagious. This is also why many countries are requiring PCR tests prior to entry, because they are more effective than rapid antigen tests, although can also give false negatives, especially early after exposure.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by Osmium 6y ago

nilkn 6y ago

To be clear, the order of events was such that I did not have loss of smell/taste at the time of the rapid tests. There was no indication at that time of anything that wasn't completely consistent with and expected from a cold, and I even encountered resistance when I tried to get tested prior to the tell-tale loss-of-smell symptom appearing (hence the rapid tests only at that point). I had a mildly uncomfortable phone call with an urgent care center where they discouraged me from pursuing testing because they didn't think I had enough symptoms. I knew exactly from whom I had contracted whatever illness I had, and that person had also tested negative for COVID (upon further questioning, their test had also been a rapid one, and they too had not been informed of its unreliability for any negative determination).

bigiain 6y ago
> There was no indication at that time of anything that wasn't completely consistent with and expected from a cold Unfortunately, I think these days symptoms of "just a cold" are enough reason to self isolate for long enough to reliably get through the Covid incubation period - which locally (Sydney .au) has been reported to occasionally be as long as 10 days or more.
- nilkn 6y ago
  I agree with you, and that's largely why I wanted to share my story -- to illustrate that even without any tell-tale symptoms and multiple negative test results, you can easily still have COVID.
  - Osmium 6y ago
    Thanks for sharing your story, it's useful to hear anecdotes. I also want to emphasize I was making a general comment and not intending a personal criticism. The points raised by bigiain and mxcrossb are well-made, "cold-like" symptoms are COVID symptoms, the loss of taste and smell only occurs in some cases. CDC has a full list of coronavirus symptoms[1]. I fear that many are flying, socializing etc. when they are actually symptomatic (e.g. headache, sore throat) because they consider these minor symptoms, or perhaps they can just "hope for the best", but the severity of the symptom doesn't change whether or not someone is symptomatic. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
- mxcrossb 6y ago
  The USA currently has nine million active cases. I actually think at this point if you have cold symptoms it may be more likely you have covid than a common cold. (Though maybe someone has data in cold cases to clarify the cross over point)
  - timr 6y ago
    > The USA currently has nine million active cases. I actually think at this point if you have cold symptoms it may be more likely you have covid than a common cold. Your intuition is wildly off-base here. Nearly all of us catch at least one cold a year, mostly during the winter months. There are, quite literally, hundreds of millions of colds a year. There's also ~half a dozen viruses in circulation at any given time that cause cold-like symptoms, vs. one for SARS-CoV2.
    - vkou 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The heck is the point of a test if not to confirm or rule out covid? He took two tests, came back negative and assumed his "cold or covid" symptoms were cold until he had reason to believe they were covid. Other than the tests sucking everything in the fact pattern is perfectly reasonable.

echelon 6y ago
Tests have false negatives. The problem isn't so much the test, but rather the public which isn't fully qualified to interpret the results. Biology and chemistry are complicated and messy. Sometimes signal is noisy or below the limit of detection.
- dboreham 6y ago
  It's also subtle in that while false negatives are common, false positives are rare (very rare). But general public don't get that subtlty and assume "the test isn't reliable" so a positive means they're not infected. Source: numerous friends and relatives.
Osmium 6y ago
This is a fair question. Any test has a certain percentage of false positives and false negatives -- in fact, you can likely tune your ratio of false positives to false negatives depending on what your priority is. On a community level, the statistics from testing are essential for monitoring the spread of a disease, but on an individual level a test can still give an incorrect result, so shouldn't be the only factor when making decisions. For an individual, if they have a negative test AND no symptoms AND no contacts with known COVID-positive individuals, then they can proceed as-if they don't have COVID and take standard precautions. However, if they do have symptoms, then that might mean further testing is required. For anyone interested about testing, this graphic is essential: https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02661-2/d41586-020-02661-2_18385362.png https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02... It shows the difference in test efficacy for different tests (rapid antigen, PCR, antibody tests) as a function of time from symptom onset. Rapid antigen tests only have a narrow window of efficacy. If they come back positive, you likely have COVID, but if they come back negative you could still have COVID and could still be contagious. This is also why many countries are requiring PCR tests prior to entry, because they are more effective than rapid antigen tests, although can also give false negatives, especially early after exposure.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]