3 ms·

I'm just going by what the FDA said: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/12/29/fda-says-rapid-at-home-tests-not-as-sensitive-to-omicron-variant-causing-false-neg

I'm just going by what the FDA said: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/12/29/fda-says-rapid-at-home-tests-not-as-sensitive-to-omicron-variant-causing-false-negative-results-1181524/ https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/12/29/fda-says-rapid-at-ho... “RADx recently performed preliminary studies evaluating the performance of some antigen tests using patient samples containing live virus, which represents the best way to evaluate true test performance in the short-term. Early data suggests that antigen tests do detect the omicron variant but may have reduced sensitivity,” according to the FDA.

dragontamer 5y ago
I'm sure. But the sensitivity of rapid tests were always much much worse than the sensitivity of PCR tests. The original sensitivity of rapid tests were like 60%. Frankly, going from 60% to 40% doesn't change my viewpoint on rapid tests. Its all "unreliable false negative" to me (I don't know what it is for Omicron, I'm just pulling 40% out of nowhere). But whatever it was, the sensitivty was always so low that you never could rely upon a negative-reading, due to the high chance of false-negatives. ---------- Rapid tests remain useful, but you _MUST_ always be mindful of their high false negative rate. The fact that their "unreliable stat got even more unreliable" isn't really news, because you shouldn't have been relying upon it anyway.