Independent expert view point12 Nov 2020 12:31
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-evaluating-the-accuracy-of-the-abc-19tm-rapid-test-for-sars-cov-2-antibodies/?cli_action=1605183766.998
“Antibody tests remain the best way to assess population levels of infection, but we do know levels of antibody can change with time. Again, this type of data measuring antibody test accuracy is essential to guide use in population surveys. Rapid tests still offer a very convenient format for testing, but may not pick up as many positive samples as laboratory tests.
“One interesting data set presented is the comparison of antibody detected against two viral components (S and N). Measuring antibody against both of these remains important yet laborious, so the more data we have the better, to see if any differences in protection or disease severity emerge.
“However, these new data are very useful at a public health level. If we know how many cases the test is missing, and how many it is wrongly calling positive, we can adjust our population estimates of prior infection accordingly. As a public health tool, these low-tech, easily deployed and rapid tests could have an important role to play in mapping the pandemic globally as well as in the UK.”
“None of this means the test is useless, by any means. After all, if all we know about a person is that they come from a group where 10% have antibodies, then we’d assess their chance of having antibodies as 10%. If they are then tested with this test, and tested positive, we’d know that their chance of having antibodies is about 80%, so we’ve learned a lot about them. (If they tested negative, their chance of not having antibodies would be about 99%, whereas before the test it was considerably less, 90%, so the test result is still quite informative.)
Sign In
Follow the stocks
