https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/abbott-wins-us-authorization-for-5-rapid-covid-19-antigen.html

Results in 15mins
Minimally invasive
$5

That's good. The cost and speed make up for its relatively poor sensitivity (assuming it's similar to other antigen tests of around 50-60% real world). If it can be mass deployed and used as large scale screening it could be quite useful.

"Abbott created a downloadable app that people who have taken the test could present before entering venues to show that they are Covid-19 free, they said."

Game changer? Social distancing would no longer be required in restaurants, movies, Kyle Field if you have just taken the test?

From their press release:

Test delivers results in just 15 minutes with no instrumentation, using proven lateral flow technology with demonstrated sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 98.5% in clinical study

If the non-repudiation controls are strong enough that I can't "borrow" someone's results, they will be strong enough that 35-40% of the people won't use it

Meant to respond to big truck

I can see airlines buying 1000s of these and testing everyone before they board. Likewise, entering high end entertainment events, expensive restaurants, schools (maybe once per week) or nursing homes. Could be a game changer for re-opening more!

^ we still question the reliability.

I have my doubts that those numbers are accurate in the real world. I think biochemAg can shed some more light on it, but I know with the Sofia antigen resting, which is also rapid, I've seen it miss several, and so have my colleagues.

If we can't get that kind of accuracy with PCR, I doubt we get it with antigen - at least not without significiant number of false positives.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If the non-repudiation controls are strong enough that I can't "borrow" someone's results, they will be strong enough that 35-40% of the people won't use it

Meant to respond to big truck

---

I feel dumb, not sure what you mean.

Friend has Covid with his family and they all were getting to the end of it, went back in for the test and were given the all clear they didn't have it. They supposedly send the samples off for more analysis and they all came back as still active cases. Point being, how can we trust tests in either direction?

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If the non-repudiation controls are strong enough that I can't "borrow" someone's results, they will be strong enough that 35-40% of the people won't use it

Meant to respond to big truck

---

I feel dumb, not sure what you mean.

---

First I agree that the app could be a game changer if it would be adopted.

Non-Repudiation is a security concept that you cant deny that it was you who did something because there is strong enough evidence that you are the only one that could have done it.

In this context, your test results are indisputably your test results. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few ways I could borrow someone's negative test result (using someone's sample, using someone else Abbott account, using someone else's phone.

If you make the testing process and the application secure enough that I can't use your results to get into that concert I want to go to, a certain 35-40% of the population won't use it unless forced by an employer.

Gotcha.

Premium said:

---

Friend has Covid with his family and they all were getting to the end of it, went back in for the test and were given the all clear they didn't have it. They supposedly send the samples off for more analysis and they all came back as still active cases. Point being, how can we trust tests in either direction?

---

Yeah, this is what you're supposed to do. Since the rapid antigen lacks sensitivity against the gold standard (PCR), it should be backed up with PCR. The rapid test allows you to take quick action if someone has a high viral load and is likely very infectious, to start contact tracing and isolation. But if they're low viral load, they should still isolate if showing symptoms until the PCR comes back, but the urgency to contact trace and isolate isn't as important as someone with a high viral load.

Understanding the test being used, testing characteristics, and limitations, should dictate how you interpret test results. As we saw in the beginning, even state public health authorities were misusing antibody data.