Live data from Hacker News

Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

nature.com

121–130 of 236 posts

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are exceedingly rare, like almost never happen.

That's unfortunately not the case. PCR false positives are a massive problem. Scientists liked to claim during COVID that PCR tests don't have false positive because they use an obscure definition that doesn't match how people normally use the term. I wrote about this problem back in 2020 when it started becoming apparent that the public health establishment wasn't attempting to stop or even measure COVID PCR test fa…

But aren't we talking about rapid tests? There is a big difference between false positives when it comes to PCR vs rapid tests. False positives with rapid tests are known to be far less prevalent.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#122
post #27
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it appears that this is somewhat redundant. A majority, if not all, of the rapid tests I have used explicitly caution against taking one in the absence of symptoms, as it is expected to yield negligible results.

I got stuck in the United States, was not allowed to fly back home until I got a negative result on a rapid test. It still took a week to test negative after I'd been symptom free.

Were you a citizen or permanent resident of the country you call home? As far as I know almost no countries put restrictions on their own citizens from returning. Some had quarantine requirements.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#123
post #115

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…

Also there was an outbreak at a Belgian Antarctic base. Incoming personel took PCR tests, tested negative and were also quarantined for 10 days in South Africa. Then they took an additional PCR test 48h before departure. Six days after arrival there was the first Covid case. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-outbreak-belgian-researc... Of course, certain news outlets like for instance the BBC have failed to disclos…

Interesting. I hadn't heard that one. However it's happened before, in the 1980s. Some researchers who were staying at a British Antarctic base over winter were entirely isolated once the last plane left. Months later they starting coming down with colds, despite none of them being sick originally.

Back then epidemiology was a more curious field so this was investigated in some depth. Nobody had opened any new crates or done anything else that could expose fomites. There had obviously been no contact with anyone else. No source for the infection could be identified.

In the wake of this there were a couple of hypotheses which have since been forgotten:

1. Transmission from the atmosphere. There's some other work that explored the idea that influenza could travel long distances in the upper atmosphere whilst remaining viable.

It's known that SARS-like viruses can float through the air because this is how it spread between apartment blocks in a SARS-1 outbreak in Hong Kong. It's also hard to see how it could have spread on the Diamond Princess except via air ducts. Despite being called SARS-2 though, the possibility of airborne transmission was strongly denied at every point by the WHO and other health agencies, presumably because it would have invalidated the rationale for lockdown.

2. Constant low level infection that our immune systems normally keep suppressed. Then you have a bad day, don't sleep well or something else knocks you off balance and this is enough for the infection to start replicating out of control until the big guns are fired up.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are exceedingly rare, like almost never happen.

That's unfortunately not the case. PCR false positives are a massive problem. Scientists liked to claim during COVID that PCR tests don't have false positive because they use an obscure definition that doesn't match how people normally use the term. I wrote about this problem back in 2020 when it started becoming apparent that the public health establishment wasn't attempting to stop or even measure COVID PCR test fa…

no.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#125
post #34
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)

.... maybe .... It depends on the purpose of the test. For example, a trillion dollar question is still long covid. Very significant numbers of people are on disability right now. About 10% of Americans have some form of long covid, and >1% are unable to work due to long covid (or >2% of the workforce). Long covid comes up even with mild and asymptomatic cases, and seems to have a strong autoimmune component. If you'…

the reason to keep testing even if asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic is to have a track record for further physical evaluation, legal and insurance claims (they are coming, insurers are already shitting themselves)

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#126
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its highly likely long COVID simply does not exist, at least in the way we currently imagine it. The body of evidence that long COVID has a biological/chemical/physical basis is very unconvincing. The demographics of the people who get long COVID is the most telling evidence that its more of a syndrome than an actual disease. Over 20% (!) of bisexual people have/had long COVID. Long COVID sufferers are more l…

> Over 20% (!) of bisexual people have/had long COVID. That’s bizarre. I’m not sure what would cause those numbers regardless of whether long covid is real.

whats causing it the poster's own biases

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#127
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they tried paxlovid?

I'd be very surprised if it helped. There's pretty good evidence that long covid isn't caused by persistent virus. My own speculation is that it's autoimmune, simple due to having it seen resolved when people were vaccinated. However, "anecdote" is not the plural of "data," and it just as well be unrelated. There are wonky changes to organs during covid, which many doctors speculate are the root cause. In either case…

long covid is a viral persistence in some tissue

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#128

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.

You're focusing on the hypothetical level. Percentages, probabilities, cohorts. It's all about who would die. It's all an abstract, though useful in making predictions. But at this point the results are in. If you want to know if this is a "real" pandemic, just look at the number of people who died and would not have otherwise died.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#129

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…

> People's immune systems differ significantly and some are just stronger than others. Just a nit but stronger is a weird term to describe any functioning immune system. Some genetic trade-off that makes one immune system better suited to blocking COVID infection might make it worse at something else. > To be infected I have to be infected but you have to be susceptible. The COVID models basically ignored this and as…

In theory yes. In practice no. The models weren't driven by data in the way you're thinking. Go take a look at their source code if you don't believe me. COVID-Sim had ~150 parameters, virtually all of which were made up guesses. Of the rest they were computed from random things like news reports from Chinese media, friends who happened to work in hospitals, etc.

When more data did become available the models were often never updated. I reviewed the code of several models during the pandemic. Beyond having severe bugs, they also frequently used values from January in December or even well into 2021! As more data came in it became clear that the original assumptions were far too pessimistic, but epidemiology doesn't distinguish clearly between assumptions, simulation results and observational data. So they just kept using the old numbers. It got their results in the news and peer reviewers didn't care.

> All of this is moot considering the the different variants we never reached some magical “herd immunity” anyways.

Well, we don't really know why variants suddenly displaced each other so fast and so completely. It would appear that there's some kind of viral interference, in which you can't be infected with multiple respiratory viruses at once. That doesn't fit with any classical form of germ theory, but the COVID response was based on the assumption of high-school level germ theory being complete, even when collected sample data showed that couldn't be true.

Re: Rapid Covid tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

#130
post #42

What I think really matters for most people is not to find out whether they have covid or not, but whether they are infectious or not. I'd really like to see research (any at all!) into how effective different test methods are at predicting infectiousness and am disappointed that this never seems to get addressed. Because who cares if you're asymptomatic but your viral load is low and you're unlikely to infect others…

> What I think really matters for most people is not to find out whether they have covid or not, but whether they are infectious or not. While some folks are certainly still worried about spreading the virus, for most folks it's always been about whether a positive test requires them to restrict their movement or activities (e.g. whether or not one could fly on a plane in 2020-2022).

I think if you go back to polls and news from the time, "most folks" only caring about legal requirements is probably a projection of your opinion and direct contacts'. Pretty sure most people were actually concerned with not infecting others, within reason (which is a different level for everyone, but still)
Post reply on HN