Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases • Hacker News Board

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#171

Post by mike_hearn » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

bamfly wrote: post #168

nextaccountic wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How this could happen was never officially explained. Maybe you caught Covid but went asymptomatic because your immune system is just better at handling it? (and PCR tests won't detect it because, as this story says, they miss 90% of asymptomatic cases) This is hardly unheard of, unexpected or unexplained.

Yeah, I read that part and was like... but I remember reading & hearing pretty damn early in the pandemic that a fairly high percentage of infections are asymptomatic, and continuing to see that stated periodically and never (that I read or heard) contradicted for the whole rest of the pandemic. And sure enough, most households I know that had Covid roll through (which is, at this point, practically every household o…

Yes that's how it went. That experience was very common.

It was unexpected. The models deployed to justify lockdown assumed 100% susceptibility to COVID-the-disease on the grounds that the virus was "novel". Although they had some crude notion of chance involved in transmission, they didn't have any notion that you could be heavily and repeatedly exposed to the virus and just never catch it at all. When did governments admit that this expectation had been violated, that must be a lot of pre-existing immunity? IIRC, they never did.

And what's the official explanation for how that happened? AFAIK there isn't one? There were some attempts at the edges to claim that all these people must have had symptoms, just so mild they didn't notice. But if neither you nor anyone else ever notice you got sick, then you didn't get sick using any conventional definition of sickness because disease is defined as a collection of symptoms.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#172

Post by orblivion » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #104

2-718-281-828 wrote: post #91

this means that level of endemic infection was reached much sooner than claimed by pretty much all western governments AND it means that case fatality or even just case i'm-not-feeling-well rate is so low that this so called pandemic probably never really was a problem either to begin with or at least since omicron.

> this means that level of endemic infection was reached much sooner than claimed by pretty much all western governments No, it doesn't mean that. An easy reason is that most western governments used PCRs for case confirmations. Another easy reason is that "90% miss on asymptomatic cases" does not mean "90% of all cases are asymptomatic", in fact, quite a lot of "asymptomatic cases" evolve later to "symptomatic cases…

If you look at politics in general, many of us have our egos tied up in their opinions of things. The pandemic was a poignant case. I count myself on this, though I'm mostly on the other side of the person you're responding to. To whatever extent "the other side was right" it's not an easy thing to deal with.

Part of it could be that they take exception to being called selfish. I take exception to being called a dupe to authority. It all makes us defensive and irrational.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#173

Post by mike_hearn » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

Pyramus wrote: post #166

mike_hearn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was researched and the results were beyond poor, which is why you never heard about them. IIRC ~75% of PCR positive samples couldn't have any virus cultured from them at all. Viral culturing isn't easy, but PCR tests can trigger on destroyed virus, so it's not a surprise that you can't get replicating virus out of many such samples especially at CT>40. But even if you can grow virus, that doesn't mean someone is i…

> I got direct experience of this when my wife got COVID and was sick for a couple of weeks, I was then quarantined by the government at home but never got sick. How this could happen was never officially explained. It seems you have been doing in-depth research about Sars-Cov-2/Covid-19, how did you miss the secondary attack rate/household infection rate? It used to be one of the crucial measures of transmission in…

I referenced the SAR in the post you're replying to (not under that name). Measuring that it's quite low isn't an explanation of why that happens, or an incorporation of that fact into policy.

I get what you mean about consensus but scientific consensus is by definition clear cut, it's supposed to mean 100% agreement. Often something is presented as a scientific consensus when it's really not, rather, people who disagree are being ignored or blocked from publishing.

During COVID a lot of things were presented to the public as if it were 100% obvious and agreed with by every specialist, then policy was made on that basis. You couldn't just disagree with government mitigations and ignore them, they were enforced by law and this was justified by the idea that anyone who disagreed with their effectiveness was a misinformation-addled rube who had to be forced for the good of everyone else. People who pointed out data or papers that disagreed with this supposed consensus were fired or banned from social media to try and maintain this illusion of universal agreement.

> there are some 200 countries and "they" followed very different policies

Did they? I'm pretty sure virtually every (rich) country all imposed mass testing, quarantines, mask mandates, lockdowns and mass vaccinations. Other than Sweden famously rejecting lockdowns, which countries didn't do these things? Policy was globally homogenous because the public health community is global and their methods don't really vary. Tegnell was the exception that proved the rule.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#174

Post by bamfly » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

worldsavior wrote: post #31

amelius wrote: post #6

Is that really a problem if asymptomatic cases are less infectious and do not cause much issues to the carrier? (This is a question, not a statement)

> (This is a question, not a statement) It's just funny that you have to mention this is a question even if a question mark exists. It shows how much toxic people got instead of understanding others.

> It's just funny that you have to mention this is a question even if a question mark exists. It shows how much toxic people got instead of understanding others.

Excessively-defensive Internet writing style. You have to make everything clear in three different ways and over-explain everything so that careless, poor, or hostile readers won't/can't flame you or derail the conversation over something that isn't even actually true about your post.

See also: disclaiming "in my opinion", sometimes more than once, for things that are obviously opinions, just to keep idiots from going "LOL that's just your opinion but you're stating it as fact" in all your responses. Once you notice this style, it's a can't-unsee kind of thing. Makes reading Web forums frustrating.

This kind of distracting, mealy-mouthed crap is absent from any decent, say, traditional-publishing book or article, but is standard online.

It's worse on HN (which, you'd think the whole "read generously" guidance would counter it pretty well—but no) than most places, but it's common all over. It's a bad way to write, generally, but there's a reason people do it in these kinds of contexts—one reliably draws lots more stupid or angry-for-dumb-reasons responses, when one does not so-write.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#175

Post by abraxas » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #104

2-718-281-828 wrote: post #91

this means that level of endemic infection was reached much sooner than claimed by pretty much all western governments AND it means that case fatality or even just case i'm-not-feeling-well rate is so low that this so called pandemic probably never really was a problem either to begin with or at least since omicron.

> this means that level of endemic infection was reached much sooner than claimed by pretty much all western governments No, it doesn't mean that. An easy reason is that most western governments used PCRs for case confirmations. Another easy reason is that "90% miss on asymptomatic cases" does not mean "90% of all cases are asymptomatic", in fact, quite a lot of "asymptomatic cases" evolve later to "symptomatic cases…

I get angry hearing opinions like that of the gp poster. While Covid certainly did not reach the levels of catastrophe of Black Death, it very much was a big problem. Anecdotal evidence from my family points to a massive problem with four fatalities on my wife's side of the family and one on mine.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#176

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:52 PM UTC

psychphysic wrote: post #163

eli wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true the tests had false negatives, but they didn't have many false positives. So if you tested positive you knew to take steps to limit exposure to others. Not perfect but not worthless.

Quite useless if it only detected it in people who knew they were ill. Coupled with the fact most took precautions so we had mild cold and flu seasons. If you had a cough, fever, headache, loss of sense taste/smell take precautions. Don't come into the office. Guess what, that's precisely the people the test detected except it was delayed! Asymptomatic? Don't bother testing it probably just gives a false sense of sec…

Feeling very ill doesn't mean you have covid, and plenty of people had jobs that would not let them call out without a picture of a positive rapid test. Those jobs absolutely would have expected you to come in with a flu that could be spread to everyone else, because god forbid a business owner take a small haircut during a global emergency.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#177

Post by gcanyon » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

spookthesunset wrote: post #162

gcanyon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read several of your responses here, and thanks for the info, but I have to say, your tone comes off as "I know better and would have been more sensible if I were in charge." When you're in the heart of an epidemic that's going to kill millions, you err on the side of caution. Quarantining you at home, for example, makes sense when you're dealing with a deadly disease and you don't know enough to know you're not…

Everybody gets a say in “lessons learned”. Not just a bunch of cherry picked doomsday epidemiologists. The “experts” were phenomenally myopic in their focus and would be in “lessons learned” as well. There is far more to life than the prevention of exactly one very specific respiratory illness. If you leave it to only the “experts” the only lessons you’ll get will be so narrowly focused as to be completely useless. “…

"experts" keep your plane in the air, your water safe to drink, your electricity supply consistent and steady, and on and on.

Putting scare quotes around the word "experts" says more about you than the experts.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#178

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

switch007 wrote: post #2

I remember early on that they were advertised as just confirming COVID when you were at the height of symptoms. Then we got flooded with using them all the time and expectations of much more. What happened?

What happened was that business owners and employers decided covid was over and if you didn't have provable covid your ass better be at the job or you're fired.

So many people were heavily pressured to work while sick if they couldn't prove it was covid, and even then there wasn't anything protecting you from being fired if you got covid at a bad time.

Remember that the "essential workers" make $35k a year.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#179

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 6:01 PM UTC

fooker wrote: post #66

netsharc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm follows: Ah yeah, Covid is a money-making scheme, because the elite ruling class of the world would prefer to profit by spreading fear, panic and forcing citizens to do things they don't want (and don't worry about the backlash that cause "uprising"), rather than just to keep the whole system the same, hey they've been managing to extract profits from the labor of the poor for a few centuries that way. But ke…

That’s a immature and binary train of thought. Covid was a genuine disaster, that doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis of lining pockets. History is full of stories of people profiteering from misery.

> that doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis of lining pockets.

And it absolutely was! See all the companies that friends and family members of Trump created and were given medical supplies to sell at steep markup! See all the PPP loans that all went to companies started last tuesday and again, cronies of public figures. Look at all the companies crying "inflation" while they spend ever more money on stock buybacks and other things, and coke is twice the price it was just a year or so ago because, surely, water or sugar got way more expensive right?

Or look at Pharmaceutical shareholders who were livid that they could "only" bilk the feds for $20 a shot instead of the $130 they wanted.

The reason these tests started being used daily has everything to do with the vast majority of employers saying "come in or you're fired, I don't care if you feel sick, unless you have a positive test you must come in" because keeping that 8% YoY growth is dogma.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#180

Post by gcanyon » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #150

gcanyon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read several of your responses here, and thanks for the info, but I have to say, your tone comes off as "I know better and would have been more sensible if I were in charge." When you're in the heart of an epidemic that's going to kill millions, you err on the side of caution. Quarantining you at home, for example, makes sense when you're dealing with a deadly disease and you don't know enough to know you're not…

> Quarantining you at home, for example, makes sense when you're dealing with a deadly disease Intuitively yes, in reality no. It was known by March 2020 that quarantines had no effect because of the outcome of trying it on the Diamond Princess, a sealed environment where quarantine could be perfectly enforced. That didn't stop SARS-CoV-2 spreading between cabins and causing COVID apparently at random, i.e. it'd prop…

Again, there are people who get paid to spend all their time determining whether, for example, overestimation is worse or underestimation is.

It is an absolute certainty that the response to covid was suboptimal. Apart from how complex the situation and the response was, just given that responses varied widely from region to region guarantees that most were not perfect.

But while it's certainly possible to nitpick some aspect or another of the response, to jump from that to therefore you (or I) know better than the people being paid to do nothing but study the situation and learn from the outcomes, is as conceited as looking at the Challenger explosion and saying, "Clearly there was a problem with the O-rings, therefore I know better how NASA should be run."

I didn't mean to attack you with my comment -- I just wanted to inform you of how your tone seemed in case you were unaware. It seems that you're not only aware, you think your tone is justified. So good for you, enjoy your confidence.