I really wish people would develop some terminology to differentiate b/w the antibody screen and the viral test. A cheap and rapid viral test would significantly change the course of the pandemic but this is not it.
Yes, that is more like the breakthrough we need. The problem I guess is that anything new like that is a huge long way from being readily scaled up, mass produced and distributed at the level necessary. Still, it's not out of the question which is why its particularly frustrating to see hundreds of rapid test articles pop up but no way to differentiate the ones that would really make a difference.
So because this tests for antibodies, are you saying someone could test positive, but it's because they got it like a month ago? (e.g. this is more similar to those tests you have to take before you start at a hospital; so they can see what booster vaccines you need?)
Yep, the fundamental problem is that the antibody test only triggers positive well after you would already be infectious probably for days, and most likely symptomatic already at least. So it can't curtail the outbreak, though as others are pointing out it can be very useful to clear people after they are infected.
Just knowing: "yeah you caught it and recovered, get back out there, you're low risk" would be super helpful. Would allow you to go volunteer at a minimum.
Comments
I really wish people would develop some terminology to differentiate b/w the antibody screen and the viral test. A cheap and rapid viral test would significantly change the course of the pandemic but this is not it.
Isn't this test developed in Singapore that? It's apparently detecting the virus genetic materials in 5 minutes?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/singapore-scie...
Yes, that is more like the breakthrough we need. The problem I guess is that anything new like that is a huge long way from being readily scaled up, mass produced and distributed at the level necessary. Still, it's not out of the question which is why its particularly frustrating to see hundreds of rapid test articles pop up but no way to differentiate the ones that would really make a difference.
Confused, their "ultra" test is detecting the spike glycoprotein, which is a test for infection, no?
(And the antibody test is also useful to figure out which nurses/docs are safe to send back in?)
So because this tests for antibodies, are you saying someone could test positive, but it's because they got it like a month ago? (e.g. this is more similar to those tests you have to take before you start at a hospital; so they can see what booster vaccines you need?)
Also because by the time someone has antibodies they've already spread it to other people?
Yep, the fundamental problem is that the antibody test only triggers positive well after you would already be infectious probably for days, and most likely symptomatic already at least. So it can't curtail the outbreak, though as others are pointing out it can be very useful to clear people after they are infected.
Just knowing: "yeah you caught it and recovered, get back out there, you're low risk" would be super helpful. Would allow you to go volunteer at a minimum.
Yes