re: #49 austin_blue

Okay, if I’m understanding you, the fast tests *may* indicate you have the virus but are completely opaque if you *do* have the virus. Yes?

So the fast and inexpensive tests are maybes and not all definitive. If nothing is there you’re OK, (for now) but if anything is there, it’s a Meh?

The fast tests seem more likely to give false negatives compared to false positives from what I have seen. If anything comes up, you have it.

Where they get tripped up is if the viral load is low, which can happen early in the infection period or late in the infection period, because it’s detecting bits of the viral RNA in your nose/throat area. (Worth noting that septum from the lower lungs seems to be more accurate but is harder to sample for obvious reasons; we’re working with what we’ve got here.)

The fast tests do not indicate if you are infectious; the data on when you are able to transmit the disease is still limited. All the fast test can say is “parts of the virus are present in your body.”