As a result, I don’t think home tests are as effective as some think. If used on tests to monitor covid, it could send millions of people with anxiety to perform laboratory tests and medical treatment they do not need.
What is needed?
When the covid-19 epidemic hit the world last year, economists and scientists called for a massive expansion of testing and human contact in the US, to identify and exclude people living with the virus. But the number of daily tests in the US has not exceeded 2 million, according to Covid Following Work, and most of these were performed in specialized laboratories or equipment.
Home tests have now been made by tens of millions, say developers, but some experts are unaware that even the most successful tests can change the picture of the epidemic here. “The real benefit of the test was six months ago,” says Amitabh Chandra, a professor at Kennedy School at Harvard University. “I think going to the counter is a good thing, but it has little value in a country with a lot of vaccines.” Vaccine symptoms may be more important for travel and restaurant than the results of the trial.
The companies that sell the test say it is still a good way to get back to normal, especially since children have not been vaccinated. For employers who want the office or factory to open, they say, self-customer testing may be the best option. Abbott’s spokesman told me that he could also help people “begin to think of organizing wedding parties, youth parties, or birthday parties.”
The UK government began offering free antigen tests, through letters and street corners, on April 9, saying it wanted people to “make it a habit” to test themselves twice a week while restrictions on censorship were reduced. Along with vaccination, free testing is part of the country’s plan to eradicate the virus. Later, the government opinion that came out said hFinancial officials were secretly concerned about the false tsunami.
In the US, there is no global campaign around home tests or funding to support them, and like pocket money, they are still too expensive for most people to use on a regular basis. This can be very good, based on my experience.
Types of tests
The three tests we tested also included two antigen tests, BinaxNow from Abbott Laboratories and equipment from Ellume, as well as a single test, called Lucira. In general, molecular testing, which detects the pathogenesis of coronavirus, is more reliable than antigen testing, which detects the presence of the outer shell of the virus.
Everything you want is in one box, except for the Ellume test, which must be included in the program. Overall, Lucira’s test had a great combination of advertising and simplicity, and was very expensive for $ 55.
We have not tested Quidel QuickVue, other antigen tests, or molecular tests from Cue Health. The test, although permitted for home use, is not sold directly to the public here.
After I have tried all the tests, I do not plan to use them often. I work from home and I don’t hang out, so I don’t have to. Instead, I consider testing it once in my closet so that if I feel sick, or lose my sense of smell, I can tell if it is covid-19. Being able to test at home can be especially important when the next winter comes with a cold and flu.
ABBOTT BATHS
BinaxNow author Abbott
Time needed: about 20 minutes
Price: $ 23.99 two
Availability: In some CVS markets since April. Abbott says he is doing a BinaxNow test every month.
Fact: 84.6% for covid-19 diagnosis, 98.5% for covid-19 errors
These are kind of house in a hurry, a 15-minute trial that the White House spent last year to illuminate staff and visitors. It is an antigen test, meaning it tests samples from the nasal cavity to find protein in a viral shell. It was sold in the US last week, and I was able to purchase two CVS test kits for $ 23.99 plus tax.
The technique used is called “lateral flow immunoassay.” In short, this means it works as a pregnancy test. It is a paper card with a test line. As the sample passes, it strikes antibodies that attach to the virus protein and then on the black mark. If the virus is present, a pink wound is found in the center.
I found the test difficult to perform. You use an eyebrow to extract six drops of the drug into a small hole in the card; then put a swab after running it on both noses. Switch the swab against the clock, fold the card to bring the test line to the swab, and that’s all. After 15 minutes, the best results will look like a dark pink line.
The downside of the test is that there are two types of user interfaces. It’s hard to see the drops coming out, and using a few can cause a mistake. The same goes for opening your nose incorrectly. Unlike other tests, these may not know if you have made a mistake.
Aside from the user’s expectation of smoking, the test has some problems with accuracy. BinaxNow is the cheapest test out there, and it is very likely to be misleading, missing almost one in seven of the actual cases. Abbott warns that the results “should be treated as arrogant” and “not against SARS-Cov-2.”
But the buyer does not get the right amount without digging the right records. The company also imposes a minimum requirement for moderators: in order to achieve minimum accuracy, you must use all of these tests, at least 36 hours. I doubt that the average consumer will realize this. The requirement for a double test was never mentioned in the instructions.
Source link
