I tested positive for Covid back in March. My wife got it shortly after. Our kids have never shown symptoms. We're wondering what the threat is of them being asymptomatic carriers.

Will a negative test confirm they are not a threat?

All a negative test can assert-and this is if a true negative-is that enough viral material isn't currently present to stimulate a positive result.

It's a good thing and only an antibody test or previous positive tests adds much information.

Other good questions:
-can it recur without re-exposure?
-can I get a different strain once I've recovered?
-are there ways other than tests to assert that a potentially asymptomatic or recovered patient isn't contagious? Like time since last symptom.

False negatives are a problem , if it has been several weeks since you and your wife had it , I would think it is unlikely your kids are still contagious

Still the same advice holds especially given there was s + test in the house
be careful , minimize social contact , wear a mask and hope reliable affordable antibody tests will be widely available so

The question is if it's safe to see family. I know there's always a threat, but it's been 2 months. If they can't be asymptomatic carriers for more than a month, I think it's fine.

How can I get them tested? 3 and 5 years old. No way they will endure a nasal swab.

You are going to want the antibody test and probably the blood draw not the finger stick

greg.w.h said:

---

All a negative test can assert-and this is if a true negative-is that enough viral material isn't currently present to stimulate a positive result.

It's a good thing and only an antibody test or previous positive tests adds much information.

Other good questions:
-can it recur without re-exposure?
-can I get a different strain once I've recovered?
-are there ways other than tests to assert that a potentially asymptomatic or recovered patient isn't contagious? Like time since last symptom.

---

And with rt-PCR, not enough viral material to test positive is a really, really small amount.

Recur without re-exposure.... no evidence that it would
Different strain once recovered... again, no. The different variants aren't changing fast enough or in the relevant parts.
PCR test for virus presence, viral culture (which takes longer and sample collection would be at least as problematic).

It seems to be taking up to 4 weeks maybe a little longer to clear virus. If the kids never had symtpoms, then there isn't a time since last symptom.

You can make some educated guesses. Parents can have virus test to be sure they have cleared virus, and then add 2 weeks to kids, maybe 3 to be safe. Most likely kids were exposed early, about the time parents started showing symptoms, so basically 5-14 days after parents. Add in some extra weeks to be extra careful depending on risk tolerance of family you want to visit.

There is a guy in my church men's group that has been tested more than once. The first test in early March was negative. The second one in mid March was positive. He has been asymptomatic since March 26th. He was tested a third time on April 30th and still tested positive.

Big difference in testing "positive" for viral genome and having infectious viral particles. Seems like remnants of the genome can stick around for a long time (even for RNA!) even though you've cleared the virus.

We just don't know how long you can produce/have infectious viral particles from start of infection...still a lot of work to be done to determine this.

14 days is actually an arbitrary number we came up with very early and has no real meaning...I actually think it should be longer.

This is where keeping track of Ct values on the RT-qPCR tests are vital and should be kept in all records immediately instead of just positive/negative. No reason not to. That way we can track over time. Values > 30 or 32 probably safe and removes some of the these low level positives occurring weeks later. Current threshold for "positive" is 37 I believe and thats really strict.

Ranger222 said:

---

Big difference in testing "positive" for viral genome and having infectious viral particles. Seems like remnants of the genome can stick around for a long time (even for RNA!) even though you've cleared the virus.

We just don't know how long you can produce/have infectious viral particles from start of infection...still a lot of work to be done to determine this.

14 days is actually an arbitrary number we came up with very early and has no real meaning...I actually think it should be longer.

This is where keeping track of Ct values on the RT-qPCR tests are vital and should be kept in all records immediately instead of just positive/negative. No reason not to. That way we can track over time. Values > 30 or 32 probably safe and removes some of the these low level positives occurring weeks later. Current threshold for "positive" is 37 I believe and thats really strict.

---

14 days was because most people develop symptoms within 14 days. <5% develop symptoms beyond 15 days post infection. This was before the prevalence asymptotic was known.

At this point, I think it is clear that being asymptomatic at 14 days doesn't mean much as far as spreading the virus goes. But nobody seems to want to extend that. I don't think we have any evidence as to when an asymptomatic carrier stops spreading virus.