October 2020, Denmark sent home blood tests to meassure spread of Cov 19

I was among those selected to participate. My sample was negative.

It was one of those; prick your finger, get blood into tube and drip in the test device.

In another thread I mention how some of the scientists working for EcoAllience in fall 2020 highlighted how un precise both nasal test and pcr tests were in terms of giving false positives.

Nasal swabs are circumstantial, you could have virus on the surface, but your body already won the battle.

The PCR test, if exagerated, can generate a positive from already dead virus.

But from this study now available on medrxiv, I find this passage interesting:

Of participants with a prior positive Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test (n=1,828), 29.1% were seropositive in the POCT.

Basically, the poct should be more accurate in terms of detecting infection.

So peoples PCR tests was 71% false positives?!!?

a reply to: flice

So maybe there actually isn't any such thing as 'asymptomatic'

or at least it doesn't happen nearly as often as people think.

maybe... maybe not

Please post a source for the Denmark (blood testing).


a reply to: flice

originally posted by: Buvvy
Please post a source for the Denmark (blood testing).

a reply to: flice

To be found here

a reply to: flice

Your source:

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was determined by Point-of Care rapid Test (POCT) distributed to participants home addresses.

An antibody test does not detect a current infection. It determines if someone was infected.

So peoples PCR tests was 71% false positives?!!?

Probably not. Rapid antibody testing can be problematic. Home testing in particular.

As participants performed the POCT at home, incorrect testing procedure or misinterpreted POCT results could lead to false negative POCT results. Importantly, inconclusive tests were treated as negative in our study, and weak lines suggesting a positive test result, could be misinterpreted as a negative test result. In other Danish studies, the tests (POCT and ELISA) have been performed and read or analyzed by professional staff which increases the performance of the test. Consequently, the seroprevalence is likely underestimated in our study.