RE: Test Design5 Jun 2020 14:15
Hello, I never post in this bb but I'm invested in ncyt and I always read your posts with interest.
I suspect that a large part of false negatives are due to the sampling, not the test itself, which in ncyts's case has been certified many times to be 100% specific and highly sensitive (I don't remember the figure sorry).
With a PCR swab we look for the virus RNA, which implies taking a good sample with adequate cellular yield on it, and possibly mucous/degenerated tissue where the virus may be lurking. I wonder how many of these swabs don't even touch the affected area in any significant way, ie collecting enough viable material, for many reasons, especially the home kits.
Also, on a different note, I have been puzzled for days at the numbers: they test 100k (roughly, just as an example as end of April aim figure) people a day but only have 6k positives, sooo.. the 94k negatives, why were they tested in the first place if only people with symptoms are tested? These are not random tests of random people to see the prevalence in the population, they specifically look for the virus in affected people.
can anybody explain, please?