Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally know multiple people who have had false positives. (e.g. multiple follow up PCR tests came back negative). The rapid tests were not designed to be used for asymptomatic screening. I would not consent to this.

They follow up with a PCR for a positive.

Wish it were PCRs but that’s $$$$$. Better than no testing.

right- but if you are the one who has a false positive test- it has huge impacts. It throws the family into quarantine, and that is a big deal for a lot of people- and it is at least 5 days before you get sprung- two pcr's 3 days apart and approx 24-48 hours from the results to come back.

But false positives are *extremely* rare.

Perhaps your “friends” were on tail end of an infection and no longer had detectable levels for the PCR.

Rapid antigen tests have a less 1% risk of false positives. The commonly used ones properly identified positives something like 99.6% of the time.

+1. There are so many asymptomatic people that they tend to think a positive test is a false positive. They are very rare. It's far more likely to get a false negative if you test too early.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally know multiple people who have had false positives. (e.g. multiple follow up PCR tests came back negative). The rapid tests were not designed to be used for asymptomatic screening. I would not consent to this.

They follow up with a PCR for a positive.

Wish it were PCRs but that’s $$$$$. Better than no testing.

right- but if you are the one who has a false positive test- it has huge impacts. It throws the family into quarantine, and that is a big deal for a lot of people- and it is at least 5 days before you get sprung- two pcr's 3 days apart and approx 24-48 hours from the results to come back.

But false positives are *extremely* rare.

Perhaps your “friends” were on tail end of an infection and no longer had detectable levels for the PCR.

Rapid antigen tests have a less 1% risk of false positives. The commonly used ones properly identified positives something like 99.6% of the time.

Anonymous wrote:I personally know multiple people who have had false positives. (e.g. multiple follow up PCR tests came back negative). The rapid tests were not designed to be used for asymptomatic screening. I would not consent to this.

Well you don't have to consent to it. But rapid tests have a low false positive rate and from what I gather APS policy is if the rapid test comes back positive, they immediately test again. If that comes back positive than you get a PCR test. However, from what I heard there were zero false positives when APS was testing Athletes last spring or in the barcroft summer school testing pilot.