If the insurance companies get any say, I bet it will be like 55% sensitive like our Lyme IGG's. Oh yeah the government is also supposed to cover the cost of positive tests also. Maybe they don't want positives.
I have also read a couple stories of people saying their doctor would not "let" them get a covid test unless they had a negative flu, strep, and maybe one other. Of course, those tests are full charge and may or may not be covered by insurance... Not sure how prevalent that is
Not saying that is the case. Just thinking out loud and wondering. I haven't looked into it much, but I havent been dazzled by the quality of any infectious disease tests I have taken or investigated throughout my life:
strep - had two negative rapid tests that were send to the lab for culture and came back positive. Those were me personally. I also had a child with a neg rapid test that came back culture positive.
Lyme- don't even need to go here
co-infections - many doctors acknowledge the accuracy of these tests can be so bad, maybe best not to waste the money.
flu- Interesting I have never heard of anybody with a positive test when this infection supposedly kills tens of thousands of Americans anually. My kids and many frieds/family have had all negative flu tests. I guess small sample size, and not very scientific to look at it this way but I am skeptical of the whole entire flu industry.
Covid - 19 PCR I glanced at some research papers about
this and saw sensitivity ranging from 45%-65%. Not good.
Covid - 19 antibody - Who knows if this one is sensitive. The track record of other ID tests do not seem reliable. I also wonder what corners were cut to get it to market so quickly. Maybe it is good. I hope it is. I will remain unconvinced until it is demonstrated to be a good effective test.
HIV test - has a reputation for being 99% accurate. Is this the only good Infectious disease test out there?
Malaria testing - pretty good sensitivity but not so great specificity.
Post Edited (Missouri) : 5/19/2020 11:50:43 AM (GMT-6)