Are At Home COVID 19 Antigen Tests Accurate Enough?

Harvard professor and epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina responds to the question of accuracy and sensitivity related to inexpensive paper antigen tests. Learn what influences accuracy is why it is relative to the goal of the test (screening for contagious COVID-19 vs testing for low virus levels that are often discovered on the tail end of infection).

See our previous MedCram videos that have featured Dr. Mina's research about COVID 19 testing and how quickly identifying individuals who are contagious (and who have high levels of SARS-CoV-2 virus) should be the primary focus.

Dr. Mina, Kyle Allred, Dr. Seheult, and MedCram have no financial disclosures related to this topic. We have a keen interest in curbing this pandemic and safely re-opening schools and our economy.

MORE VIDEOS AND RESOURCES ON AT-HOME COVID 19 SCREENING TESTS:

------------------------------------------------------

#COVID19 #rapidtestsnow #dailyquicktest

[ericdelmar]

I'm a lay person, and have gratefully followed MedCram since April. It seems so freaking obvious to me that the paper-based testing is the clear choice for the purpose of containment. I'm pissed that govt gets played by Big Medicine and we all suffer as a result. It seems that they're milking the high-dollar tests that become fundamentally pointless due to delays in result, along with their less meaningful results for our needs. We don't need absolute positivity as much as we need likely transmissibility!

[Jdjustsaying]

This needs to be globally known and understood.

[sandralevia]

I tested positive in June. It took 7 days to get pcr results. How many people did I infect in that 7 day period ? I am now waiting on another pcr result. I was exposed again and have had some symptoms. I work in healthcare with the elders. Can only use your ppe and hope for the best!! Rapid tests rapidly please!

[pakmandan]

Thanks for bringing us good medical information Dr. Seheult

[zettaiengineer]

The medical system has rationed C19 testing from the start with "important people" receiving unfettered access while the majority gets what remains. Cheap, at-home tests are a great equalizer and most importantly, a tool that can modify behavior on a timely and mass scale.

[genebarker]

I think this is a great idea Dr. Mina, but I think a better is a better application of the test than at home. Taking the test at home is not terrible but it misses the point. A more effective way would be at the point of interaction with others, people you don't know. Those places are: work, travel, shopping, schools, social events,  restaurants, health clubs, etc. I think any company wanting to open their doors would jump at the chance. It would take a lot of tests but given daily for two weeks would just about kill the virus off.

[franglish]

It depends on the prevalence of true positives in the local population, if it's below a certain threshold, they only become useful as a screen if they're followed with a PCR test.

You only need about 1/6 of the population deviating from the restrictions for this disease to maintain itself, and without having eyes on the cases, in a clinically relevant time period, contact tracing is useless if they have been exposing people for days after receiving a false negative or waiting on the results for their PCR test.

[kasuha]

I think this cause is missing a statistical estimate on practical impact. For example, a group of 150 people feeling healthy sitting together for two hours in a plane, what is the chance somebody will be sick in that group without this test vs when using this test. How much will using the test before the flight reduce number of people who will contract the disease during such flight. Similar estimate for schools when the test is used daily, every other day, or weekly. These things are not easy to calculate and require knowledge or at least educated estimates of many things but if such results are significant, they're much more likely to convince someone than saying "it will be much better".

[themadmattster]

I support rapid testing. If one is false positive or negative- then 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4, since the paper tests are super cheap

[wegder]

Early antigen tests were abused when they were used to extrapolate the number of people that had been infected, It gave them a bad name.

[CLim-jggq]

How about false Negatives and sensitivity?