Based on what beyond Roche’s own self-reported performance testing?
The problem with that is that if it gives you a false positive result and you change behavior accordingly, you may be putting yourself at risk. Of course, if you don’t particularly care–and given the number of people I’ve seen heading to crowded parks and beaches, many don’t–then it doesn’t really matter either way, but then you can just save your money and consult a Magic-8 ball, which is only only likely just as reliable as many tests but can also be reused.
Fuck that shit that they are putting themselves at risk. They may feel it is now impossible for them to be an asymptomatic or presymptomatic spreader and put OTHERS, potentially higher risk more vulnerable others at risk.
I don’t care if that person gets again and gets sick or not, but if they get an asymptomatic case that they can spread, and spread it to a vulnerable person, well they deserve to have some ribs broken!
Absolutely true…and from what I can tell, many people just don’t seem to care that even if they are personally willing to accept the risk of infection, they are also increasing the chance of spreading it to others and prolonging the period that society as a whole is going to have to remain locked down. With an effective response once we learned the virus had reached North America, reliable testing with a vigorous track & trace effort, and a willingness by the public to endure a few weeks of lockdown (enabled by a legislature and executive willing to take the measures necessary to ensure that people weren’t fearing for their livelihoods and well-being) the United States could have squashed the infection curve like South Korea did. Instead, dawdling, partisan hackery, and an apparently literal belief in miracles means that we are now experiencing per capita deaths that are approaching Italy and Spain at their peaks with no real end in sight now that so many states have decided to “open up for business”. Expect new waves of deaths in more rural areas followed by more shutdowns, finger-pointing, and a continued lack of any plan or leadership on the national level and in many states.
Inaccurate antibody testing is nearly worthless at best, and has the potential for great harm at worst; for the FDA to eschew their responsibility to validate those tests before they are released to the public is contemptible. Regardless of what anyone sees on a test, until we have both reliable antibody testing and are confident that the presence of antibodies means that one cannot become reinfected or be an asymptomatic carrier, everyone should continue to behave as if they can contract and spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
I have no reason to believe I ever got it, and if I did get it, I was completely asymptomatic and any it doesn’t change a thing. Even if I had it nobody’s gonna let me go around without a mask and stop social distancing, so my behavior is the same either way. It’s also $200 where I live, all the tests I’m aware of have a chance at false results, and I’m not really that curious.
Have they even sussed out whether or not you can get re-infected with antibodies?
And have they decided once and for all if plasma with antibodies is helpful/useful?
My brother thinks he had it in February. He wants to get tested just to see, and also to see if his blood would be useful. But he’s not trying to pay $200 for any hokum.
I wouldn’t pay $200 but per the CARES act it’s generally free. There are cracks people can fall through I’m sure and get billed, but I confirmed it’s free the place we plan to go soon (in NJ). I will try to find the type (ELISA, lateral flow) and brand and check that against manufacturer’s finding of sensitivity/specificity as well as monitor future independent findings for that particular test.
The combination of specificity and prevalence of exposure in the population can give a high % of false positives, but not necessarily.*
Nor can anyone gtee what antibodies do for you, but ‘nothing much’ isn’t likely AIUI.
I think it’s worth knowing at zero marginal cost, and the availability here now is ‘sure come on in’.
*assume for argument sake these manufacturer numbers are correct, though aren’t audited yet by anyone else. At the lower end of sensitivity/specificity in this table and a 1% true positive rate, false positives would outnumber real ones close to 10:1; toward the upper end of these numbers and 10% real positives, real would outnumber false around 10:1. And the true positive rate around here could be 10%, it was found to be ~20% in a test just across the river in Manhattan, though it goes around in circle somewhat without an absolute gtee on the specificity of the test.
We don’t know for sure whether antibodies to this will help or not. Some infectious diseases like dengue fever can be worse if you catch them a second time. Plus who knows which of these tests are accurate. Plus you have to go to a medical facility to get them done, thus exposing yourself, probably unnecessarily and for no benefit, to more germs.
I think I probably haven’t had it so no point anyway.
Is there some way to get a test done without going to a medical office? I’m avoiding that as much as I can unless I develop severe symptoms of COVID or of a heart attack or something.
If you are expressing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2, you will have resistant to reinfection; that is, your immune system is already producing or at least capable of producing immunoglobulins capable of binding to antigens (infectious microorganisms). How effective this is, and how long immunological memory will last, although absent of rapid antigenic drift of the virus it is likely to last months and more likely years. However, it is possible that this virus can remain latent tissues and then be reexpressed and shed later. This is unlikely for a ‘respiratory pathogen’, but it is clear that this virus affects more than just the squamous epithelium of the lungs and respiratory tract tissues, so we can’t really assume anything until the pathogenesis of the virus is better characterized.
The use of convalescent plasma is undergoing trials in various countries and there have been a few tentative indications of efficacy, but no controlled trials with verifiable success as of yet. Even if that does work as a theraputic intervention, it will not provide lasting immunity unless the patient immune system kicks in and doesn’t cause uncontrolled cytokine release.
I haven’t had a symptom, don’t even know anyone who had a symptom. Just finished my second gloved, masked, shielded shopping trip since the beginning of March. Total positive cases in my county 0.1 percent of the population. I didn’t even see a thousand people today, much less come within 6 feet of them. Probably haven’t seen 1000 people since 2018.
So, no, I am not getting an antibody test.
I got tested this morning. Ugh, that was horrible. I knew they’d stick the swab up my nose but I was not aware that the nurse would have to twist it around back there for ten full seconds.
Anyway, I’m having a minor procedure done on Monday and the hospital is requiring all patients to be tested so it was off to the drive-thru test center - in a parking lot at a mall - I went.
Now, I wait. I suppose I’ll find out it’s bad news if I get a call from them cancelling the procedure.
The antibody test will necessarily be a serology (blood) test because it is looking for immunoglobulin proteins in your blood. The nasal swab testing seems to have a large number of false negatives (originally the CDC test was suspect but from what I’ve seen many other nasal swabs seem to be fairly inconsistent as well, so it is possible that the virus just doesn’t host that effectively in the tissues of the nasal cavities) so I wouldn’t rely on antigen nasal testing to give you a high confidence result.
In this preprocedure screen context you are right that low false negative rate is most important. OTOH true positives should low. 100% confidence is not possible though. Just lowered risk.
I’d get one.
Back in mid march, right around the time the quarantine kicked off, I came down with something. Awful sore throat, cough, sore (but probably just from coughing). I checked my temp regularly for a few days and it never spiked. It was most likely just a cold, but keep wondering if that was it. I know some cases are pretty mild.
Even knowing that the tests aren’t 100% accurate and even knowing that we don’t know how likely you are to get it a second time if you have the antibodies, I’d still like to know.
I’ve seen tests that you can get for $200ish dollars, but I’m not going to pay that for some curiosity. I signed up for an NIH sponsored at home test. We’ll see how that pans out.
I have a feeling once ‘wide spread testing and contact tracing’ gets going, if it’s shown that presence of antibodies gives you some level of (even temporary) immunity, wide spread antibody testing will be done as well.
Had to go for blood work at my doctors yesterday for my upcoming MRI (and for my six month visit). They asked if I wanted an antibody text and I said, “sure, why not”?
I’ll get one eventually. Basically out of curiosity. I spent a week with my parents just before they both got sick with confirmed Coronavirus. Based on the level of exposure to them and the fact that we went to all the same places I should have gotten sick as well. So I’m curious if I had an symptomatic or minimally symptomatic infection. I’m going to wait until they sort out which of the various antibody tests are most reliable though.
Yes. Basically, because I’m curious if this bug I FINALLY recovered from was covid or not. I might also be slightly less panicked about our necessary grocery shopping if I have some evidence I’ve already survived it, although I’m aware that having antibodies doesn’t mean you are immune, and can possibly make reinfection worse in (cf dengue).
I got sick with symptoms that are broadly consistent with covid 5 days after a middle-schooler with “some bug” from a town with known cases coughed on me. Of course, pretty much every virus produces symptoms broadly consistent with covid. Still, I want more clarity.
The Abbott one is supposed to be pretty good, with 100% sensitivity (95% confidence intervale 95.8-100) and 99.6% specificity (99%-99.9%)
The Euroimmun one isn’t as good, but isn’t terrible, with 90% sensitivity (74.4%-96.5%) and 100% specificity (95.4%-100%), based on a fairly small sample tested.
They don’t tell you which they used.
The biggest change it would make if I tested positive is that my husband would get tested, and if HE tests positive, he’d try to arrange to donate plasma. He’s currently a regular platelet donor.