I’m going to the urgent care to get an antibody test tomorrow. Why? It’s free and I’m curious. Also, if I have any sort of resistance, I’ll sleep so much better.
Not.
I believe in getting a test when I will do something different based on the result. This test does not give a result that should change my behavior in any way, but could even in unconscious behavior ways, and may give me a potentially dangerously incorrect belief regarding risks, which can impact higher risk others I come in contact with.
I sleep fine now.
I would. I am curious and it will add to the database of knowledge of infections in the area.
Your seeking out a test and getting it will not add to the data base. It would be for your curiosity, which is an adequate reason.
I would have thought that this was being tracked. We are seeing data for new infections every day. Is this just for people with symptoms?
I am honestly very curious based some suspiciously-timed experiences in early March. However I am not interested in bothering right now because so far it appears the inaccuracy is massive. I just flat-out wouldn’t trust any of the tests enough to satisfy my curiosity in the first place.
In rank order of value for research/database of knowledge purposes would be:
-
a validated research grade test of randomly chosen individuals weighted to represent a region’s demographics by age, sex, race, SES, etc. (studies in progress but take time, hugely valuable);
-
convenience samples, like at shopping malls (the studies released so far, some selection bias and not as likely representative of the population as a whole)
.
.
.
.
.
- numbers based on those who have sought out a test of unknown validity for some reason (very likely a strong selection bias and pretty worthless in terms of increasing the database of knowledge).
It may also have some value identifying those who are at the least risk of getting new infections of being contagious in the future who then might be the best be in positions taking care of higher risk individuals and in front line high contact positions … but not as a substitute for the same behaviors and PPE use that antibody negative people use.
I haven’t had any symptoms and I’m not that curious. Besides, as far as I know, having antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean that I have immunity against further infection. At this point I figure getting tested would only add a point to someone’s database and not confer any peace of mind.
I would get one if they were widely available or if I was advised I should get one by a medical professional. But for now, I feel other people need the available tests more than I do.
No. I do not know anyone that has tested positive. My son does from his job in a hotspot but he has tested negative twice. I have not experienced any symptoms. I feel at this point it would be a wasted test.
If the experts in the field conclude that a positive antibody test means immunity to the coronavirus, then sure, I’d get the test. Right now, who the hell knows about that? And there are a number of antibody tests out there, and what I’ve read is that only a few of them are reasonably accurate, so what would I learn?
Not to mention, we aren’t even sure yet that having survived a case of COVID-19 confers immunity, so presence of antibodies means little if anything yet.
Anyone seeking to a serology test to check for antibodies for the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to be aware that currently there are only a handful of tests that have been reviewed by the FDA and none that have been formally approved. The FDA has permitted private companies to sell their own tests provided that they have followed certain guidelines but there is no guarantee of the accuracy of the test. The article mentions one test sold by ToxTest that is “97.9% accurate”, but it is unclear what that means, because tests can have both false negatives (indicating no exposure when you have actually contracted the virus) and false positives (indicating that you have antibodies when you do not). The CDC-developed antigen test (which looked for the viral RNA fragments) had serious problems with false negatives with an estimated 30% error rate, but the problem with antibody tests is the reverse; a Type I (false positive) error may give you confidence that you now have whatever immunity that exposure provides when you actually have none. And even a small error rate can produce a large fraction of incorrect results and detrimental outcomes.
I would personally wait until a test has been thoroughly vetted and there are additional tests to verify a positive result as a much more likely true positive, otherwise the testing tells you nothing useful and may actually mislead you in your choices and behavior.
For those not put off by a little bit of simple math: Bayes’ Theorem Example: Surprising False Positives
Stranger
I’d be happy to get a test…just as soon as the false positive rate is much lower.
The antibody tests are unregulated and incredibly unreliable, you’re better off reading your horoscope.
Many of them but not all of them. The Roche one is supposed to be excellent.
What I don’t get is that the FDA didn’t make companies get any sort of rigorous approval and now seems surprised that only three of the tests that were rushed to market are any good, so now they’re on the verge of yanking the ones that are awful. What happened is pretty much what anyone with half a brain predicted would happen.
We don’t have free widespread antibody testing for the asking here in the Portland area, but you can buy hometesting kits from Quest Diagnostics for about $129.
I’m aware of the possibility of an inaccurate result. I’ll still get it once it’s available. Just curious.
That Quest test is supposed to be crap.
I got tested on 23 April 2020 as required by the Education Commission of Beijing. Since nobody has knocked on my door, I’m assuming I’m okay.