6 ms·

I'm glad they're offering these again, but in my experience covid tests have been pretty useless. I'm pretty sure I've had covid twice and despite daily testing

I'm glad they're offering these again, but in my experience covid tests have been pretty useless. I'm pretty sure I've had covid twice and despite daily testing I never actually tested positive, and talking to others they've had similar experiences.

bdcravens 3y ago
I'm in the same boat I think. I never had COVID, even after taking PCR tests when I was feeling ill. (I have CF, so respiratory infections are common, so entirely possible it was something else) Best one was the day my wife was diagnosed just before a minor surgical procedure. That day we went and received 15-minute PCR tests (the kind you'd get if you were traveling): I was negative and she was confirmed as positive. I can only assume I had it at one point and still had "natural" immunity. (We were both previously vaccinated, and her COVID case was very mild)
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  Every single human on earth has had COVID, multiple times. Its just that 90% of the people who "have COVID" never even know they have it, it's THAT MILD of a disease. I wonder how many years/generations it will take for people to accept the truth around COVID.
  - LeafItAlone 3y ago
    What are your sources for this?
    - dilyevsky 3y ago
      This paper[0] suggests 94% at the end of 2022. At this point it’s probably closer to a 100%. Technically it’s “at least once” though not “multiple times”. Other papers only cite 25-50% asymptomatic cases since Omicron so not quite 90% but still quite high [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v...
      - LeafItAlone 3y ago
        Thanks for sharing. I’m admittedly very bad at reading papers like this, but I can’t determine how they are getting to that figure. I’ve never tested positive, despite having been repeatedly tested (at home and PCR), due to the nature of my situation. I do believe, though, that I have probably had it, even if the tests never showed it, because how could I not have?
        dilyevsky 3y ago
        They modeled it mathematically using something called “Bayesian evidence synthesis”. It’s a popular method assessing disease rates, war casualties, etc when there’s limited “hard data” available
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    The whole reason it was such a difficult disease to contain was because so many people were asymptomatic. That doesn't mean it's a "mild" illness overall. Plenty of people with tuberculosis don't have symptoms, would you call that a mild disease?
autoexec 3y ago
The negatives can't really be trusted, but if they say you've got it, you've got it. The home tests are still useful, if for no other reason than because a lot of people cannot get a test at all, or can't get one unless they have symptoms. My insurance company is like that. At one point in the last year I'd recently been with someone who tested positive two days later, and while I felt fine, I wanted a test before visiting a highly vulnerable relative and was told the test would be entirely out of pocket since I wasn't feeling sick. People who can't afford a PCR out of pocket can at least try several at home tests for some piece of mind.
- avar 3y ago
  > The negatives can't really be trusted, but if they say you've got it, you've got it. All of these tests have a non-zero false positive rate, they're not definitive proof that you have COVID.
  - NamTaf 3y ago
    It is vanishingly small relative to the false negative rate. It’s safe enough to say that if a test says you have it, you can act as if you it.
    - aakresearch 3y ago
      Why would you act differently when you're experiencing symptoms but the test is negative, if you know the negative is (relatively) highly likely to be "false"? And why would you test if you're having no symptoms? To me it is a very definition of useless test - neither positive nor negative add anything to decision making.
      - cameldrv 3y ago
        Lots of people will do a covid test, or more than one, if they know they spent significant time close to someone with covid. If positive, they can then take measures to keep their family and others from getting sick.
otachack 3y ago
In my experience: when I had COVID symptoms and took one of these it was positive. So was my partner. I think at the end of the day these aren't going to be perfect but if you combine it with a personal evaluation (do I feel sick, are people that were near me sick) it gives you better decision making than just playing dumb.
cameldrv 3y ago
The antigen tests definitely seem to be much less effective than they used to be. There are so many false negatives, it's not clear that the test has any value. Many people have covid symptoms, test negative, and then figure they're good to go visit grandma in the nursing home or whatever, when the symptoms alone are probably a more reliable guide. We use molecular (Lucira) home tests, which are much more sensitive, and even those have given us very inconsistent and confusing results on two separate occasions. One thing that has helped anecdotally among my family and friends of mine is to do use a throat swab, and first thing in the morning before you eat or drink anything. A number of times, many other tests were negative, but that one was positive.
vaalbara 3y ago
I had been doing a poor job swabbing too shallow, and I wonder if that's also a significant contributor to false negatives. This video helped me a lot [0]. In brief: don't swab just the shallow, hairy skin of the nose, and don't swab upwards. Instead, go slow and go straight back perpendicular to your face about 2-3cm to get to the mucosa of the respiratory lining, twirl for 15 seconds. It helped to see this ENT surgeon do it slowly and calmly, while talking through it. He goes much deeper than I had ever done on my own. 0. https://twitter.com/DrEricLevi/status/1477057391212449793 https://twitter.com/DrEricLevi/status/1477057391212449793
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Both times I've had it I did it pretty shallow in the front of my nose and it was really dark for me on the peak day, unmistakable, much darker whan the C stripe. The other 2-3 days I had it it was about the same color as the C stripe.
  - NamTaf 3y ago
    When you’re very infected then even the most casual of swabs will pick it up. The OP is instead addressing that doing it in the very front of your nose may not get sufficient viral load to detect lower levels of infection. This is doubly problematic when combined with different newer strains (omicron for example was a big step down in test sensitivity), for which tests are not as sensitive towards by virtue of being designed for the OG strain. My technique is to actually swab the back of my throat, then as deep in my nose as I can tolerate - I’m usually actually running out of stick on the swab before it’s too deep for me. I figure I want to grab any possible trace of virus if it’s there and I’d far prefer a false positive that disappears a day later than a false negative.
    - extraduder_ire 3y ago
      Ever get a positive test like that? I've avoided jamming them in my throat because I don't want to get saliva up my nose, and have a nagging feeling that it'll mess with results. I've usually blown my nose, spun the thing around the suggested distance up my nose, pull it out because I'm about to sneeze, then repeat that process until it has been up both sides for the suggested time. Usually needing to blow my nose out 2-6 times total, with a bell-curve amount of snot coming out across each time. Had it one time, and the first time I did it was the darkest I've ever seen a line on one of those tests. I wish there were more cheap at home tests like these, for other stuff. The last tests I picked up were 2 for €4 in Lidl. I tried about as many different branded ones as I came across throughout the pandemic. Was neat to see the different approaches they used for packaging/documenting/labelling what amounted to a long swab, some buffer solution, and a tiny test strip.
kylebenzle 3y ago
The VAST majority of people who have/had covid have no idea they have/had it. For 3 years it seems we were all trying to ignore this one simple fact. People still even joke about, "not knowing how I've avoided COVID this long". We have ALL "had COVID" multiple times. Testing at all is at best security theater but is literally a fools errand. COVID testing has not and will not ever save a single life. Back in 2020, the US Navy published a study that told us everything we needed to know about covid: They found that over 90% of sailors who tested positive were asymptomatic. With only 1% testing positive in random checks, a mere 10% of those showed ANY symptoms and none had any major complications. It's clear now that the mass hysteria was baseless. We had the facts, but it seems some people just wanted a reason to freak out for a couple years. 1. [Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/11/health/military-covid-19-outbreaks-nejm-studies-wellness/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/11/heal...)
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  I’m sure plenty of people had it with no symptoms, but over a million people in the US died from it. I don’t think baseless is the right term here.
wenc 3y ago
Antigen tests, on their box, usually say that if you test positive (there's enough virus to turn the strip, it's most likely correct. But if you test negative, it doesn't guarantee it's actually negative -- since there are so many factors that could have led to that negative result (insufficient virus, early in the infection, incorrect swabbing, reagent expired). This is explicitly stated on the box, so it's not "useless". During the early days of COVID, the antigen test is also a cheaper, faster "statistical" filter since full PCR tests are more expensive and less scalable. It's actually doing what it's meant to do.
bbstats 3y ago
Pretty useful if you get a positive though

bdcravens 3y ago

I'm in the same boat I think. I never had COVID, even after taking PCR tests when I was feeling ill. (I have CF, so respiratory infections are common, so entirely possible it was something else) Best one was the day my wife was diagnosed just before a minor surgical procedure. That day we went and received 15-minute PCR tests (the kind you'd get if you were traveling): I was negative and she was confirmed as positive. I can only assume I had it at one point and still had "natural" immunity. (We were both previously vaccinated, and her COVID case was very mild)

kylebenzle 3y ago
Every single human on earth has had COVID, multiple times. Its just that 90% of the people who "have COVID" never even know they have it, it's THAT MILD of a disease. I wonder how many years/generations it will take for people to accept the truth around COVID.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  What are your sources for this?
  - dilyevsky 3y ago
    This paper[0] suggests 94% at the end of 2022. At this point it’s probably closer to a 100%. Technically it’s “at least once” though not “multiple times”. Other papers only cite 25-50% asymptomatic cases since Omicron so not quite 90% but still quite high [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v...
    - LeafItAlone 3y ago
      Thanks for sharing. I’m admittedly very bad at reading papers like this, but I can’t determine how they are getting to that figure. I’ve never tested positive, despite having been repeatedly tested (at home and PCR), due to the nature of my situation. I do believe, though, that I have probably had it, even if the tests never showed it, because how could I not have?
      - dilyevsky 3y ago
        They modeled it mathematically using something called “Bayesian evidence synthesis”. It’s a popular method assessing disease rates, war casualties, etc when there’s limited “hard data” available
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  The whole reason it was such a difficult disease to contain was because so many people were asymptomatic. That doesn't mean it's a "mild" illness overall. Plenty of people with tuberculosis don't have symptoms, would you call that a mild disease?

autoexec 3y ago

The negatives can't really be trusted, but if they say you've got it, you've got it. The home tests are still useful, if for no other reason than because a lot of people cannot get a test at all, or can't get one unless they have symptoms. My insurance company is like that. At one point in the last year I'd recently been with someone who tested positive two days later, and while I felt fine, I wanted a test before visiting a highly vulnerable relative and was told the test would be entirely out of pocket since I wasn't feeling sick. People who can't afford a PCR out of pocket can at least try several at home tests for some piece of mind.

avar 3y ago
> The negatives can't really be trusted, but if they say you've got it, you've got it. All of these tests have a non-zero false positive rate, they're not definitive proof that you have COVID.
- NamTaf 3y ago
  It is vanishingly small relative to the false negative rate. It’s safe enough to say that if a test says you have it, you can act as if you it.
  - aakresearch 3y ago
    Why would you act differently when you're experiencing symptoms but the test is negative, if you know the negative is (relatively) highly likely to be "false"? And why would you test if you're having no symptoms? To me it is a very definition of useless test - neither positive nor negative add anything to decision making.
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      Lots of people will do a covid test, or more than one, if they know they spent significant time close to someone with covid. If positive, they can then take measures to keep their family and others from getting sick.

otachack 3y ago

In my experience: when I had COVID symptoms and took one of these it was positive. So was my partner. I think at the end of the day these aren't going to be perfect but if you combine it with a personal evaluation (do I feel sick, are people that were near me sick) it gives you better decision making than just playing dumb.

cameldrv 3y ago

The antigen tests definitely seem to be much less effective than they used to be. There are so many false negatives, it's not clear that the test has any value. Many people have covid symptoms, test negative, and then figure they're good to go visit grandma in the nursing home or whatever, when the symptoms alone are probably a more reliable guide. We use molecular (Lucira) home tests, which are much more sensitive, and even those have given us very inconsistent and confusing results on two separate occasions. One thing that has helped anecdotally among my family and friends of mine is to do use a throat swab, and first thing in the morning before you eat or drink anything. A number of times, many other tests were negative, but that one was positive.

vaalbara 3y ago

I had been doing a poor job swabbing too shallow, and I wonder if that's also a significant contributor to false negatives. This video helped me a lot [0]. In brief: don't swab just the shallow, hairy skin of the nose, and don't swab upwards. Instead, go slow and go straight back perpendicular to your face about 2-3cm to get to the mucosa of the respiratory lining, twirl for 15 seconds. It helped to see this ENT surgeon do it slowly and calmly, while talking through it. He goes much deeper than I had ever done on my own. 0. https://twitter.com/DrEricLevi/status/1477057391212449793 https://twitter.com/DrEricLevi/status/1477057391212449793

wkat4242 3y ago
Both times I've had it I did it pretty shallow in the front of my nose and it was really dark for me on the peak day, unmistakable, much darker whan the C stripe. The other 2-3 days I had it it was about the same color as the C stripe.
- NamTaf 3y ago
  When you’re very infected then even the most casual of swabs will pick it up. The OP is instead addressing that doing it in the very front of your nose may not get sufficient viral load to detect lower levels of infection. This is doubly problematic when combined with different newer strains (omicron for example was a big step down in test sensitivity), for which tests are not as sensitive towards by virtue of being designed for the OG strain. My technique is to actually swab the back of my throat, then as deep in my nose as I can tolerate - I’m usually actually running out of stick on the swab before it’s too deep for me. I figure I want to grab any possible trace of virus if it’s there and I’d far prefer a false positive that disappears a day later than a false negative.
  - extraduder_ire 3y ago
    Ever get a positive test like that? I've avoided jamming them in my throat because I don't want to get saliva up my nose, and have a nagging feeling that it'll mess with results. I've usually blown my nose, spun the thing around the suggested distance up my nose, pull it out because I'm about to sneeze, then repeat that process until it has been up both sides for the suggested time. Usually needing to blow my nose out 2-6 times total, with a bell-curve amount of snot coming out across each time. Had it one time, and the first time I did it was the darkest I've ever seen a line on one of those tests. I wish there were more cheap at home tests like these, for other stuff. The last tests I picked up were 2 for €4 in Lidl. I tried about as many different branded ones as I came across throughout the pandemic. Was neat to see the different approaches they used for packaging/documenting/labelling what amounted to a long swab, some buffer solution, and a tiny test strip.

kylebenzle 3y ago

The VAST majority of people who have/had covid have no idea they have/had it. For 3 years it seems we were all trying to ignore this one simple fact. People still even joke about, "not knowing how I've avoided COVID this long". We have ALL "had COVID" multiple times. Testing at all is at best security theater but is literally a fools errand. COVID testing has not and will not ever save a single life. Back in 2020, the US Navy published a study that told us everything we needed to know about covid: They found that over 90% of sailors who tested positive were asymptomatic. With only 1% testing positive in random checks, a mere 10% of those showed ANY symptoms and none had any major complications. It's clear now that the mass hysteria was baseless. We had the facts, but it seems some people just wanted a reason to freak out for a couple years. 1. [Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/11/health/military-covid-19-outbreaks-nejm-studies-wellness/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/11/heal...)

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I’m sure plenty of people had it with no symptoms, but over a million people in the US died from it. I don’t think baseless is the right term here.

wenc 3y ago

Antigen tests, on their box, usually say that if you test positive (there's enough virus to turn the strip, it's most likely correct. But if you test negative, it doesn't guarantee it's actually negative -- since there are so many factors that could have led to that negative result (insufficient virus, early in the infection, incorrect swabbing, reagent expired). This is explicitly stated on the box, so it's not "useless". During the early days of COVID, the antigen test is also a cheaper, faster "statistical" filter since full PCR tests are more expensive and less scalable. It's actually doing what it's meant to do.

bbstats 3y ago

Pretty useful if you get a positive though