You can order 4 free Covid tests

[sohappytobehere]

Right now, you can order 4 free Covid tests at covidtests.gov. I just ordered ours. Simple!

[Love2Swim]

Thank you for posting!

[Lark7]

Does traditional Medicare pay for the cost of these “free” at-home covid tests?

Thank you.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Does traditional Medicare pay for the cost of these “free” at-home covid tests?

Thank you.

Free is free. They don't ask you for your medical information. You can order it from the USPS (postal service) website: special.usps.com/testkits

You give your name, e-mail address, mailing address. That's it. They'll send you 4 test kits at the end of the month (though I imagine they'll be backlogged and would wait til mid-February before complaining that you didn't get your free tests).

[billethkid]

Does traditional Medicare pay for the cost of these “free” at-home covid tests?

Thank you.

Just fill out the form on the website. It does not ask ANYTHING about insurance.
Once you put in address it shows number of tests = $0!!!!

[golfing eagles]

Right now, you can order 4 free Covid tests at covidtests.gov. I just ordered ours. Simple!

And now for the obvious question that I just asked of the other person who posted the same thing: Did you NEED them, or did you order them because they are "free'?

[Bogie Shooter]

And now for the obvious question that I just asked of the other person who posted the same thing: Did you NEED them, or did you order them because they are "free'?

May need them by the time they get here.

[retiredguy123]

Does traditional Medicare pay for the cost of these “free” at-home covid tests?

Thank you.
Apparently, the tests are free to anyone who wants to order them. Paid for by the taxpayers and not tied to Medicare. I don't think you need to prove anything, except that you have an address in the U.S. I hope they are not available to be shipped around the world at U.S. taxpayer expense.

[sohappytobehere]

And now for the obvious question that I just asked of the other person who posted the same thing: Did you NEED them, or did you order them because they are "free'?

No, we don't need them right now. But if it should become necessary, I don't want to have to drive around locating one.

[Altavia]

CDC Guidance for when to self test.

Self-Testing | CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testing.html#anchor_1638718975230)

When to Consider Self-Testing

Self-tests may be used if you have COVID-19 symptoms or have been exposed or potentially exposed to an individual with COVID-19.

Even if you don’t have symptoms and have not been exposed to an individual with COVID-19, using a self-test before gathering indoors with others can give you information about the risk of spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. This is especially important before gathering with unvaccinated children, older individuals, those who are immunocompromised, or individuals at risk of severe disease.

A positive test result indicates that you likely have a current infection, and you should isolate and inform close contacts.

A negative test result indicates that you may not be infected and may be at low risk of spreading disease to others, though it does not rule out an infection. Repeating the test will increase the confidence that you are not infected. Performing serial tests, meaning two or more tests over several days with at least 24 hours between tests—with one test as close as possible to the event you will attend—improves the reliability of testing and reduces your risk of transmitting disease to others even further. Some self-tests require this type of repeat testing in the manufacturer’s instructions.

Correct sample collection is key to accurate results.

Self-Testing | CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testing.html#Print)

[drducat]

CDC Guidance for when to self test.

Self-Testing | CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testing.html#anchor_1638718975230)

When to Consider Self-Testing

Self-tests may be used if you have COVID-19 symptoms or have been exposed or potentially exposed to an individual with COVID-19.

Even if you don’t have symptoms and have not been exposed to an individual with COVID-19, using a self-test before gathering indoors with others can give you information about the risk of spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. This is especially important before gathering with unvaccinated children, older individuals, those who are immunocompromised, or individuals at risk of severe disease.

A positive test result indicates that you likely have a current infection, and you should isolate and inform close contacts.

A negative test result indicates that you may not be infected and may be at low risk of spreading disease to others, though it does not rule out an infection. Repeating the test will increase the confidence that you are not infected. Performing serial tests, meaning two or more tests over several days with at least 24 hours between tests—with one test as close as possible to the event you will attend—improves the reliability of testing and reduces your risk of transmitting disease to others even further. Some self-tests require this type of repeat testing in the manufacturer’s instructions.

Correct sample collection is key to accurate results.

Self-Testing | CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testing.html#Print)

Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives..:rolleyes:

[oldtimes]

Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives..:rolleyes:

Exactly, I have zero confidence they will be accurate, just another waste of taxpayer money.

[La lamy]

Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives..:rolleyes:

I wonder more about the opposite. These testa are not as sensitive as PCR tests, so there may be more false negative ones, therefore more contagious people going about infecting others. I also wonder if these at home tests come with instructions to report somewhere if you're Covid positive...

[golfing eagles]

Exactly, I have zero confidence they will be accurate, just another waste of taxpayer money.

Agree. These home tests have a notoriously high rate of both false positives and false negatives, thus making their predictive value fairly low. Add to that most people will probably not insert the swab far enough, thus collecting an inadequate sample leading to a false negative result. All in all, I'm afraid this home testing plan is less COVID mitigation and more COVID mitigation theater.

[golfing eagles]

I wonder more about the opposite. These testa are not as sensitive as PCR tests, so there may be more false negative ones, therefore more contagious people going about infecting others. I also wonder if these at home tests come with instructions to report somewhere if you're Covid positive...

That's another good question----physicians and other testing sites are under a reporting mandate, home tests won't be. That's the main reason that home tests are not accepted for travel guidelines----no cruise ship or foreign government will accept test results gathered under the "honor system".

[Byte1]

More tests equals higher infection stats. Then the nay sayers can tell everyone how great all the other countries are because their stats are soooo much lower than ours. Like I have said before, just give me the stats on hospitalizations caused BY Covid and the death rate stats caused BY Covid. Not "WITH" covid. Like TB, a lot of folks can test positive for covid and not actually have symptoms. Our resident physician posters can correct me (and will) if I am incorrect on that statement.

[nick demis]

By the time the tests get to your mailbox, they expect the new variant will have already infected the entire population and be on its way out. Good timing to help anyone other than making everyone scared to death.

[Love2Swim]

Undoubtedly there will be the emergence of more variants. Who is to say how dangerous they might be? It will be good to have the tests on hand..

[golfing eagles]

Undoubtedly there will be the emergence of more variants. Who is to say how dangerous they might be? It will be good to have the tests on hand..

So, the contention is that the unreliable home tests will magically become much more reliable if a new variant arises? Will it necessarily even test for this unknown variant? What is the expiration date of these home tests? The question comes down to this: Does having a home test on hand "just in case" actually do anything, or does it just make some people "feel better". We simply don't know at this point. But I really am disinclined to support a $20 billion+ price tag to make someone "feel better"

[Altavia]

More tests equals higher infection stats. Then the nay sayers can tell everyone how great all the other countries are because their stats are soooo much lower than ours. Like I have said before, just give me the stats on hospitalizations caused BY Covid and the death rate stats caused BY Covid. Not "WITH" covid. Like TB, a lot of folks can test positive for covid and not actually have symptoms. Our resident physician posters can correct me (and will) if I am incorrect on that statement.

Agree hospitalization are the most representative metric we have. Last time I checked, they were lower than Delta at its peak despite much higher infection rates

I'm not aware that home test results are reported?

COVID-19 Hospitalizations (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html)

[Bay Kid]

Yeah, it is free!

[Bay Kid]

Yeah, it is free!

[Fisherman]

Golfing Eagles, Not exactly true. Just got home from Royal Carribean cruise. They accepted the home test. You actually purchase them through Royal Carribean. $70 for two. They are shipped from a third party and you perform the test via tele visit with the lab. They watch you and verify your results. They then send them via email to you in 30 minutes.
This was accepted and is widely used whether done at home or in a pharmacy.

[golfing eagles]

Golfing Eagles, Not exactly true. Just got home from Royal Carribean cruise. They accepted the home test. You actually purchase them through Royal Carribean. $70 for two. They are shipped from a third party and you perform the test via tele visit with the lab. They watch you and verify your results. They then send them via email to you in 30 minutes.
This was accepted and is widely used whether done at home or in a pharmacy.

Thank you---I did hear that some tests could be monitored remotely, I'm not sure that it applies to those tests obtained "free" from the government. Royal Caribbean can pay the monitors from the $70 cost of the test, and have a vested interest in having more people cruise. However, given the recent reports of cruises with fully vaccinated people who tested negative still having outbreaks, the reliability of home testing remains in question.

Also, I believe some destinations require PCR tests.

[Captainpd]

2nd post of 3 consecutive post about this. Can you please read the board before posting

[Marine1974]

Golfing eagle would you want to be driving around trying to get tested
if your sick ? This is what we have been told to do by our President.

[oldtimes]

Golfing eagle would you want to be driving around trying to get tested
if your sick ? This is what we have been told to do by our President.

If I get sick I am calling my doctor not using a test that may or may not be right.

[golfing eagles]

Golfing eagle would you want to be driving around trying to get tested
if your sick ? This is what we have been told to do by our President.

If I'm sick, I'm not driving around AT ALL, and certainly not to get "a test". I would be isolating for 5 days, wearing a mask for the next 5 days, and seek medical attention if getting worse. And I would think long a hard about getting an "early" monoclonal antibody infusion until more data is in.

[Bill14564]

Agree hospitalization are the most representative metric we have. Last time I checked, they were lower than Delta at its peak despite much higher infection rates

I'm not aware that home test results are reported?

COVID-19 Hospitalizations (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html)

??? Your graphs show that as of a month ago hospitalization had already exceeded delta. What am I missong?

[oldtimes]

Agree. These home tests have a notoriously high rate of both false positives and false negatives, thus making their predictive value fairly low. Add to that most people will probably not insert the swab far enough, thus collecting an inadequate sample leading to a false negative result. All in all, I'm afraid this home testing plan is less COVID mitigation and more COVID mitigation theater.

When/if the numbers finally go down they will say “see we gave you all those free tests and now it is getting better, now we need to raise your taxes”

[golfing eagles]

When/if the numbers finally go down they will say “see we gave you all those free tests and now it is getting better, now we need to raise your taxes”

And send out more "free" tests.......:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[blueash]

The home covid antigen tests have an extremely low rate of false positives. Those who claim otherwise are not telling you the truth. An improperly obtained sample will not give a false positive, but it may give a false negative. A study of nearly one million rapid antigen tests done on symptom free people in Canada where all positive tests on the rapid were then tested with PCR found that the false positive rate was 0.05% of all tests done.
That for the math challenged is 50 out of 1 million tests. [edit, math error, it is 500]

So the person who wrote
"Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives.."

is lying about what will happen with home testing even IF the results were being reported. And s/he is wrong about reporting. There is no, zero, zilch, nada obligation for the reporting of these at home Covid tests.

Local or state health departments may be able to accept your report. AFAIK there is no Federal agency that will accept reports from consumer use. We can guess what the state of Florida will do about wanting to know the number of positive cases.

So the truth is

1, The at home test if positive is overwhelmingly a true positive not a false positive especially during a period of high rates of disease
2. Because patients can now test at home, the real number of cases being reported is much more likely to be falsely lowered. Those who would have been tested in labs and thus obligated to be reported will NOT have their data collected.
3. There is no required reporting of positive, or negative at home tests. Some states or counties may actively encourage voluntary reporting, some will keep their heads in the sand and not encourage reporting.
4. If your at home test is negative that is nice but not strong proof. The rate of false negative especially from poor test technique with nasal swabbing is considerable. A negative result is probably more accurate when you are symptomatic rather than just as a screening test.


If you believe you have Covid and knowing your status is important because you would want monoclonal treatment or you have exposed a high risk person, the PCR test which is not rapid is a better test for determining you are really negative. Nonetheless the screening test is a good test.


As to this comment
"Exactly, I have zero confidence they will be accurate, just another waste of taxpayer money."

Your confidence would add nothing to the situation. The test is the test. Its accuracy, both false positives and negatives is established. Whether you care to believe in science over your gut feelings does not change reality.

[golfing eagles]

The home covid antigen tests have an extremely low rate of false positives. Those who claim otherwise are not telling you the truth. An improperly obtained sample will not give a false positive, but it may give a false negative. A study of nearly one million rapid antigen tests done on symptom free people in Canada where all positive tests on the rapid were then tested with PCR found that the false positive rate was 0.05% of all tests done.
That for the math challenged is 50 out of 1 million tests.

So the person who wrote
"Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives.."

is lying about what will happen with home testing even IF the results were being reported. And s/he is wrong about reporting. There is no, zero, zilch, nada obligation for the reporting of these at home Covid tests.

Local or state health departments may be able to accept your report. AFAIK there is no Federal agency that will accept reports from consumer use. We can guess what the state of Florida will do about wanting to know the number of positive cases.

So the truth is

1, The at home test if positive is overwhelmingly a true positive not a false positive especially during a period of high rates of disease
2. Because patients can now test at home, the real number of cases being reported is much more likely to be falsely lowered. Those who would have been tested in labs and thus obligated to be reported will NOT have their data collected.
3. There is no required reporting of positive, or negative at home tests. Some states or counties may actively encourage voluntary reporting, some will keep their heads in the sand and not encourage reporting.
4. If your at home test is negative that is nice but not strong proof. The rate of false negative especially from poor test technique with nasal swabbing is considerable. A negative result is probably more accurate when you are symptomatic rather than just as a screening test.


If you believe you have Covid and knowing your status is important because you would want monoclonal treatment or you have exposed a high risk person, the PCR test which is not rapid is a better test for determining you are really negative. Nonetheless the screening test is a good test.


As to this comment
"Exactly, I have zero confidence they will be accurate, just another waste of taxpayer money."

Your confidence would add nothing to the situation. The test is the test. Its accuracy, both false positives and negatives is established. Whether you care to believe in science over your gut feelings does not change reality.

Absolutely agree 100%, and one of your best posts:bigbow: The problem with home testing remains false negatives.

[oldtimes]

The home covid antigen tests have an extremely low rate of false positives. Those who claim otherwise are not telling you the truth. An improperly obtained sample will not give a false positive, but it may give a false negative. A study of nearly one million rapid antigen tests done on symptom free people in Canada where all positive tests on the rapid were then tested with PCR found that the false positive rate was 0.05% of all tests done.
That for the math challenged is 50 out of 1 million tests.

So the person who wrote
"Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives.."

is lying about what will happen with home testing even IF the results were being reported. And s/he is wrong about reporting. There is no, zero, zilch, nada obligation for the reporting of these at home Covid tests.

Local or state health departments may be able to accept your report. AFAIK there is no Federal agency that will accept reports from consumer use. We can guess what the state of Florida will do about wanting to know the number of positive cases.

So the truth is

1, The at home test if positive is overwhelmingly a true positive not a false positive especially during a period of high rates of disease
2. Because patients can now test at home, the real number of cases being reported is much more likely to be falsely lowered. Those who would have been tested in labs and thus obligated to be reported will NOT have their data collected.
3. There is no required reporting of positive, or negative at home tests. Some states or counties may actively encourage voluntary reporting, some will keep their heads in the sand and not encourage reporting.
4. If your at home test is negative that is nice but not strong proof. The rate of false negative especially from poor test technique with nasal swabbing is considerable. A negative result is probably more accurate when you are symptomatic rather than just as a screening test.


If you believe you have Covid and knowing your status is important because you would want monoclonal treatment or you have exposed a high risk person, the PCR test which is not rapid is a better test for determining you are really negative. Nonetheless the screening test is a good test.


As to this comment
"Exactly, I have zero confidence they will be accurate, just another waste of taxpayer money."

Your confidence would add nothing to the situation. The test is the test. Its accuracy, both false positives and negatives is established. Whether you care to believe in science over your gut feelings does not change reality.

Regardless, timing is everything. You can test negative on one day and test positive on the next. So if you test negative and feel you are safe that is not always correct. According to an article I read for the University of Chicago the test results are only valid for 8 to 12 hours.

For the unbelievers:
COVID-19 testing: When to test, how accurate are home tests and more - UChicago Medicine (https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/covid-testing-when-to-test)

[maistocars]

Right now, you can order 4 free Covid tests at covidtests.gov. I just ordered ours. Simple!
Big question is how long will it take to be delivered. My guess is you'll wait 3-6 months minimum. Seems like we have way too many people getting carried away with testing - it's the new "IN" thing. Next step is to start a new club - and then we'll see Friday night testing parties.

[blueash]

I do need to come back and say I got my math wrong in the original post. I may be a little math challenged myself. 0.05% of 1 million is 500 not 50

[golfing eagles]

I do need to come back and say I got my math, wrong in the original post. I may be a little math challenged myself. 0.05% of 1 million is 500 not 50

Actually, I have a feeling there is a problem with this study that showed a 0.05% false positive rate. From the article:

"Researchers from the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal JAMA earlier this month. They looked at the results of more than 900,000 rapid antigen tests conducted over 537 workplaces in Canada between January and October 2021.

During this period, Canada had two significant waves of COVID-19 driven by the Delta variant. A total of 1,322 positive results were logged with rapid tests. Of these cases, 1,103 also had data from a PCR test to compare against.

In total, 462 rapid test results, or 0.05 per cent of the 900,000 results, resulted in false positives. This represents 42 per cent of the positive test results in the study."

I just find it unlikely that they only had 1,322 positive results out of 900,000 tests---that equals a positivity rate of 0.1468%, when we have been running positivity rates in the US of 20, 30, and even 40+% in some areas. Then, the "false positive" tests were 462, representing, yes, 0.05 of 900,000 but a whopping 42% of the positives. So, in other words, if your home test was positive, there is a 42% chance it is false, not 0.05%. I would think further studies are needed.

[golfnut]

And now for the obvious question that I just asked of the other person who posted the same thing: Did you NEED them, or did you order them because they are "free'?

and now for the obvious answer, you order them now so you have them when you need them, if you wait until you need them ordering them online does absolutely no good. this is the second time you asked this question, did you not get enough information the first time.

And now for the obvious question, how many more times will you ask this question?

[golfing eagles]

and now for the obvious answer, you order them now so you have them when you need them, if you wait until you need them ordering them online does absolutely no good. this is the second time you asked this question, did you not get enough information the first time.

And now for the obvious question, how many more times will you ask this question?

Probably until I get a better answer than I've gotten so far-----but I'm not holding my breath. But thank you for inquiring about my keyboard time

[jimjamuser]

By the time the tests get to your mailbox, they expect the new variant will have already infected the entire population and be on its way out. Good timing to help anyone other than making everyone scared to death.
The graph of cases for Omicron and some lingering Delta is showing signs of DECREASING. But, right now that is a fairly large drop in NY, Ct. R.I., and (I believe New Jersey). It is down about 7% in Florida and about 6 other states. It is STILL unchanged in many states or even increasing in the Dakotas, Wisconsin, and maybe a few others.
..... BUT, the main takeaway is that the decrease for the whole US is happening SLOWLY. So that there IS going to be a need for testing for MONTHS. Now, whether there really is a NEED for this type of testing is NOT for me to speculate on. That is ABOVE my pay grade.

[Boomer]

The home covid antigen tests have an extremely low rate of false positives. Those who claim otherwise are not telling you the truth. An improperly obtained sample will not give a false positive, but it may give a false negative. A study of nearly one million rapid antigen tests done on symptom free people in Canada where all positive tests on the rapid were then tested with PCR found that the false positive rate was 0.05% of all tests done.
That for the math challenged is 50 out of 1 million tests. [edit, math error, it is 500]

So the person who wrote
"Watch the case number grow 1000% in the next 2 weeks.......all the false positives.."

is lying about what will happen with home testing even IF the results were being reported. And s/he is wrong about reporting. There is no, zero, zilch, nada obligation for the reporting of these at home Covid tests.

Local or state health departments may be able to accept your report. AFAIK there is no Federal agency that will accept reports from consumer use. We can guess what the state of Florida will do about wanting to know the number of positive cases.

So the truth is

1, The at home test if positive is overwhelmingly a true positive not a false positive especially during a period of high rates of disease
2. Because patients can now test at home, the real number of cases being reported is much more likely to be falsely lowered. Those who would have been tested in labs and thus obligated to be reported will NOT have their data collected.
3. There is no required reporting of positive, or negative at home tests. Some states or counties may actively encourage voluntary reporting, some will keep their heads in the sand and not encourage reporting.
4. If your at home test is negative that is nice but not strong proof. The rate of false negative especially from poor test technique with nasal swabbing is considerable. A negative result is probably more accurate when you are symptomatic rather than just as a screening test.


If you believe you have Covid and knowing your status is important because you would want monoclonal treatment or you have exposed a high risk person, the PCR test which is not rapid is a better test for determining you are really negative. Nonetheless the screening test is a good test.


As to this comment
"Exactly, I have zero confidence they will be accurate, just another waste of taxpayer money."

Your confidence would add nothing to the situation. The test is the test. Its accuracy, both false positives and negatives is established. Whether you care to believe in science over your gut feelings does not change reality.



Dr. blueash,

I am always respectful of your posts. I appreciate your sharing of your medical knowledge.

Thank you.

(I bet your patients miss you. :) )

Boomer

[blueash]

Actually, I have a feeling there is a problem with this study that showed a 0.05% false positive rate. From the article:

"Researchers from the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal JAMA earlier this month. They looked at the results of more than 900,000 rapid antigen tests conducted over 537 workplaces in Canada between January and October 2021.

During this period, Canada had two significant waves of COVID-19 driven by the Delta variant. A total of 1,322 positive results were logged with rapid tests. Of these cases, 1,103 also had data from a PCR test to compare against.

In total, 462 rapid test results, or 0.05 per cent of the 900,000 results, resulted in false positives. This represents 42 per cent of the positive test results in the study."

I just find it unlikely that they only had 1,322 positive results out of 900,000 tests---that equals a positivity rate of 0.1468%, when we have been running positivity rates in the US of 20, 30, and even 40+% in some areas. Then, the "false positive" tests were 462, representing, yes, 0.05 of 900,000 but a whopping 42% of the positives. So, in other words, if your home test was positive, there is a 42% chance it is false, not 0.05%. I would think further studies are needed.

Nice to see you read the study. I really cannot speak to the question of why the Canadian study had a low positivity rate other than to say that Canada has been extremely vigorous, or perhaps vigourous, in quarantine, masking, distancing, and convincing its citizens to take Covid seriously. The study was done in businesses on healthy persons. This did not involve people being tested because they were ill. Most of our positive Covid tests are on people with some symptoms or a defined exposure.

Secondly, as you read the study you already know how the authors explained the 42% figure, which you cite but don't explain. While the tests were done in several hundred locations, 60% of the false positives came from just 2 testing locations, from a single manufacturer and a single lot which led the authors to believe it was a faulty batch of tests. If you throw out the bad batch, which we should not when looking at data as it happens, then the rate of false positives falls to 200 out of nearly a million.

For those interested in reading the study... HERE (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788067)

[golfing eagles]

Nice to see you read the study. I really cannot speak to the question of why the Canadian study had a low positivity rate other than to say that Canada has been extremely vigorous, or perhaps vigourous, in quarantine, masking, distancing, and convincing its citizens to take Covid seriously. The study was done in businesses on healthy persons. This did not involve people being tested because they were ill. Most of our positive Covid tests are on people with some symptoms or a defined exposure.

Secondly, as you read the study you already know how the authors explained the 42% figure, which you cite but don't explain. While the tests were done in several hundred locations, 60% of the false positives came from just 2 testing locations, from a single manufacturer and a single lot which led the authors to believe it was a faulty batch of tests. If you throw out the bad batch, which we should not when looking at data as it happens, then the rate of false positives falls to 200 out of nearly a million.

For those interested in reading the study... HERE (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788067)

I saw that, and the researchers believed that 278 of the false positives were related to faulty tests. But then, we have to subtract 278 from both the numerator and denominator (462-278=184/1322-278=1056) which yields a 17.4% false positive rate----you still can't use 900,000 as the denominator. So, throwing out the tests the researchers thought were defective, there's still a 1 in 6 chance that your positive home test is really negative.

[PaPaLarry]

How long does it take to get results?

[mtdjed]

How long does it take to get results?

Perhaps I have missed it but are these tests going to be accepted for foreign travel COVID test requirements. If they are as accurate as stated in these posts, wouldn't they be better than getting tested at sites such as CVS and others that report results three days later.

Just think of all the people we could hire at MCO to monitor that each person properly pokes their nose and properly handles their kit disposal. Oh, I forgot, nobody needs to monitor proper use because nobody monitors CVS drive through self-testing, but TSA blindly accepts those test results to safely fly.

Don't forget to wash your hands with soap and hot water for 20 seconds before testing, just like you do in the drive through tests.

[rmd2]

////

[blueash]

I saw that, and the researchers believed that 278 of the false positives were related to faulty tests. But then, we have to subtract 278 from both the numerator and denominator (462-278=184/1322-278=1056) which yields a 17.4% false positive rate----you still can't use 900,000 as the denominator. So, throwing out the tests the researchers thought were defective, there's still a 1 in 6 chance that your positive home test is really negative.

I am certain that you actually know that in a low incidence event that that positive predictive value is problematic. For the readers... If we were in a smallpox epidemic and our smallpox test had a 0.01% false positive error rate it is a great test. We test everyone with smallpox looking rash, most of whom really do have smallpox, but some don't, they have bug bites, hives, or atypical chicken pox or monkey pox or cow pox. We know from sophisticated more accurate but time consuming testing that when all rashy people are tested in the middle of our smallpox epidemic that 60% really do have smallpox.

So we test 1 million rashy people. The "real" number of smallpox cases in the example would be 600,000 and we'd like to see our rapid test report the correct 600,000 people as positive. But having a false positive error rate of .01% we instead get 600,100 positive tests. It's a big nothing burger in the middle of an epidemic. Only 100 of the 600,100 positives are wrong, 0.016%. In this situation the chance that your positive test being true is over 99.9%. Great test

But instead in today's world where thanks to immunizations and vigorous public health measures and isolation and quarantine, smallpox is gone, the last case in the world being in the 1970s, if we test 1 million rashy Americans with our smallpox rapid test, we report there are 100 positive tests. In this case the chance of your test being wrong is 100%. Same test, same 1 million rashy Americans, same number of false positives.

The false positive rate on our test did not change, but because the rate of the disease changed the odds that any individual test was wrong changes. Now with smallpox gone, every single positive test is wrong. That is not because the test suddenly became more error prone, rather the prevalence of the disease changed.

In our Covid situation, the statement to which I initially responded was that the availability of at home tests would make the number of reported cases jump 1000%. I pointed out that this was wrong because positive at home tests are not going to be reported. And in reply to the claim that the at home test is useless as it is prone to false positives.. I mentioned the Canadian study

What the Canadian study showed was that in a symptom free population of adults of working age you get essentially zero [500 out of a million] false positive tests. So that proves that the tests are NOT going to jump the numbers up because healthy people are NOT going to test positive. That's all it says. We have no idea in the Canadian study how many false negatives there might have been.

GE expressed surprise at how few tests are positive given that Covid was in the community during the study period. Again, the Canadian government, even in the very Conservative western provinces, has been strongly supportive of telling ill people to not go to work, and those exposed but not ill to quarantine and not go to work. That may in part explain the low rate of positive tests. False negatives also are clearly involved.

[oldtimes]

I am certain that you actually know that in a low incidence event that that positive predictive value is problematic. For the readers... If we were in a smallpox epidemic and our smallpox test had a 0.01% false positive error rate it is a great test. We test everyone with smallpox looking rash, most of whom really do have smallpox, but some don't, they have bug bites, hives, or atypical chicken pox or monkey pox or cow pox. We know from sophisticated more accurate but time consuming testing that when all rashy people are tested in the middle of our smallpox epidemic that 60% really do have smallpox.

So we test 1 million rashy people. The "real" number of smallpox cases in the example would be 600,000 and we'd like to see our rapid test report the correct 600,000 people as positive. But having a false positive error rate of .01% we instead get 600,100 positive tests. It's a big nothing burger in the middle of an epidemic. Only 100 of the 600,100 positives are wrong, 0.016%. In this situation the chance that your positive test being true is over 99.9%. Great test

But instead in today's world where thanks to immunizations and vigorous public health measures and isolation and quarantine, smallpox is gone, the last case in the world being in the 1970s, if we test 1 million rashy Americans with our smallpox rapid test, we report there are 100 positive tests. In this case the chance of your test being wrong is 100%. Same test, same 1 million rashy Americans, same number of false positives.

The false positive rate on our test did not change, but because the rate of the disease changed the odds that any individual test was wrong changes. Now with smallpox gone, every single positive test is wrong. That is not because the test suddenly became more error prone, rather the prevalence of the disease changed.

In our Covid situation, the statement to which I initially responded was that the availability of at home tests would make the number of reported cases jump 1000%. I pointed out that this was wrong because positive at home tests are not going to be reported. And in reply to the claim that the at home test is useless as it is prone to false positives.. I mentioned the Canadian study

What the Canadian study showed was that in a symptom free population of adults of working age you get essentially zero [500 out of a million] false positive tests. So that proves that the tests are NOT going to jump the numbers up because healthy people are NOT going to test positive. That's all it says. We have no idea in the Canadian study how many false negatives there might have been.

GE expressed surprise at how few tests are positive given that Covid was in the community during the study period. Again, the Canadian government, even in the very Conservative western provinces, has been strongly supportive of telling ill people to not go to work, and those exposed but not ill to quarantine and not go to work. That may in part explain the low rate of positive tests. False negatives also are clearly involved.

The negative results are the problem. They are going to give people a false sense of security given that they are only valid for a short period of time. They can test negative on one day and on the very next day they can be positive.

[PugMom]

Agree. These home tests have a notoriously high rate of both false positives and false negatives, thus making their predictive value fairly low. Add to that most people will probably not insert the swab far enough, thus collecting an inadequate sample leading to a false negative result. All in all, I'm afraid this home testing plan is less COVID mitigation and more COVID mitigation theater.

:clap2::clap2:

[jimjamuser]

Perhaps I have missed it but are these tests going to be accepted for foreign travel COVID test requirements. If they are as accurate as stated in these posts, wouldn't they be better than getting tested at sites such as CVS and others that report results three days later.

Just think of all the people we could hire at MCO to monitor that each person properly pokes their nose and properly handles their kit disposal. Oh, I forgot, nobody needs to monitor proper use because nobody monitors CVS drive through self-testing, but TSA blindly accepts those test results to safely fly.

Don't forget to wash your hands with soap and hot water for 20 seconds before testing, just like you do in the drive through tests.
Reading the posts closely, it can be seen that a POSITIVE indication is ACCURATE. But, a negative indication means VERY little. If someone gets a POSITIVE TEST, then they have REAL knowledge. They should NOT go to work especially indoors. They should quarantine for (I think, about 8 or 10 days) to avoid giving it to someone over age 70 or a young person with various conditions. They should monitor their condition ((what condition their condition is in) and IF super sick - they should go to a Hospital.

[jimjamuser]

Reading the posts closely, it can be seen that a POSITIVE indication is ACCURATE. But, a negative indication means VERY little. If someone gets a POSITIVE TEST, then they have REAL knowledge. They should NOT go to work especially indoors. They should quarantine for (I think, about 8 or 10 days) to avoid giving it to someone over age 70 or a young person with various conditions. They should monitor their condition ((what condition their condition is in) and IF super sick - they should go to a Hospital.

[drducat]

CDC Guidance for when to self test.

Self-Testing | CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testing.html#anchor_1638718975230)

When to Consider Self-Testing

Self-tests may be used if you have COVID-19 symptoms or have been exposed or potentially exposed to an individual with COVID-19.

Even if you don’t have symptoms and have not been exposed to an individual with COVID-19, using a self-test before gathering indoors with others can give you information about the risk of spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. This is especially important before gathering with unvaccinated children, older individuals, those who are immunocompromised, or individuals at risk of severe disease.

A positive test result indicates that you likely have a current infection, and you should isolate and inform close contacts.

A negative test result indicates that you may not be infected and may be at low risk of spreading disease to others, though it does not rule out an infection. Repeating the test will increase the confidence that you are not infected. Performing serial tests, meaning two or more tests over several days with at least 24 hours between tests—with one test as close as possible to the event you will attend—improves the reliability of testing and reduces your risk of transmitting disease to others even further. Some self-tests require this type of repeat testing in the manufacturer’s instructions.

Correct sample collection is key to accurate results.

Self-Testing | CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testing.html#Print)

Perhaps I have missed it but are these tests going to be accepted for foreign travel COVID test requirements. If they are as accurate as stated in these posts, wouldn't they be better than getting tested at sites such as CVS and others that report results three days later.

Just think of all the people we could hire at MCO to monitor that each person properly pokes their nose and properly handles their kit disposal. Oh, I forgot, nobody needs to monitor proper use because nobody monitors CVS drive through self-testing, but TSA blindly accepts those test results to safely fly.

Don't forget to wash your hands with soap and hot water for 20 seconds before testing, just like you do in the drive through tests.

No one will provide treatment based on a home test....a positive result will require a PCR test also....go figure right~~~~~:faint: