Thai Health Authorities Agree to Use Rapid Antigen Tests to Detect COVID-19

[snoop1130]

 

BANGKOK (NNT) - Thailand’s Public Health Ministry is accelerating its push for rapid antigen testing, in addition to the current RT-PCR method, which yields the most accurate results, in an effort to speed up detection of cases as COVID-19 infections soar.

 

Department of Medical Sciences (DMS) Director-General Dr. Supakit Sirilak said medical agencies have discussed the rapid testing drive, in response to record daily highs of infections and deaths.

 

He said authorities are now considering whether to make the rapid test kits available for home use, but warned they were not 100% accurate. Thailand’s Food and Drugs Administration (TFDA) has approved 24 brands of rapid antigen test kits for use in hospitals and testing centers.

 

Dr. Supakit added that suspected cases with no symptoms, whose antigen test is negative, should self-isolate at home and then take another rapid test a few days later. If they test positive, the result must be confirmed by an RT-PCR test. However, at-risk groups and people with symptoms should take an RT-PCR test straight away, and medical units facing high demand could give rapid antigen tests first.

 

-- © Copyright NNT 2021-07-09

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Shuya]

Just 12 months behind everybody else. No hurry no worry.

[nobodysfriend]

Rapid tests available at all 7-11 stores would greatly help combating the virus . the one who tests positive can be re-tested at a hospital with an PCR test for accuracy .

[hotchilli]

44 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Rapid tests available at all 7-11 stores would greatly help combating the virus . the one who tests positive can be re-tested at a hospital with an PCR test for accuracy .

Don't think CP will approve of 7-11 becoming test centres... or a hotspot for infected people.

[nobodysfriend]

28 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Don't think CP will approve of 7-11 becoming test centres... or a hotspot for infected people.

No test centres . Just the availability of rapid tests for sale .

People could test themselves and go to a hospital to retest if positive ...

[Caldera]

20 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

He said authorities are now considering whether to make the rapid test kits available for home use, but warned they were not 100% accurate.

Come on, this is really a no-brainer. Of course test kits need to be made available for home use.

[connda]

20 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

in addition to the current RT-PCR method, which yields the most accurate results,

PCR test are no more accurate then the non-standardized cycle counts that their results are based upon.
Cycle counts are not standardized. The WHO as well as every standards bodies in the world should have set a definitive cycle count standard for PCR tests in March 2020.  As long as cycle counts can be manipulated (raised and lowered) results from PCR can never be considered to be neither "accurate" or reliable between two labs using different cycle count thresholds or even the tests themselves.

Why this is allowed to continue is beyond me.  It's akin to using equipment that is incorrectly calibrated an insisted that the inaccurate measurement are perfectly acceptable.  Imagine having a machine that reads blood sugar that has been calibrated but is actually off by 20 mg/DL but "experts" say "don't worry a discrepancy of +/- 20 mg/DL is perfectly accurate for determining if you have diabetes."  Further imagine that every FBS blood testing device is allowed to vary +/- 20 mg/DL because the WHO and the CDC says it's perfectly acceptable..  Actual accurate blood sugar readings would be impossible to obtain.

PCRs test must follow the same rigorous calibration and standardization.  All PCR tests world-wide need to be standardized at one, single, universally agreed upon cycle count.  Using PCR tests that vary from 25 to 45 cycle counts between labs and testing bodies is like saying that using a blood glucose meters that varies by as much as +/- 20 mg/DL is a perfectly acceptable measure of blood sugar. 
If the variability between blood glucose tests and PCR tests where the same, people would be dying of misdiagnosed diabetes, dying of insulin shock, or would be incorrectly diagnosed as having diabetes when they in fact do not. 
I'm utterly amazed that both doctors, researchers, and health care professionals are not shocked.  But instead they say nothing.  What in God's name has happened to this entire profession?  It's incorrigible and should not be occurring.  Yet here we are.

Edited July 10, 2021 by connda

[johng]

4 minutes ago, connda said:

What in God's name has happened to this entire profession? 

I think they have seen what happens to others who "go against the grain"   and speak up about things...they get demonised and "de-platformed"   so keep silent.

[mfd101]

The transition from a rapid test result to a PCR test also depends on the error bias of the rapid test system.

 

The suggestions above that you only transition from rapid test to PCR if the rapid test result is positive assumes that the rapid test is biased to finding people positive who really aren't.

 

But what if the bias is towards finding people negative who are really positive? In that case the suggestions above would give people a false view of their state of health, with no follow-up.

 

Which - depending on just how inaccurate the rapid tests are - suggests to me that they may not be much use at all.

[placeholder]

40 minutes ago, connda said:

PCR test are no more accurate then the non-standardized cycle counts that their results are based upon.
Cycle counts are not standardized. The WHO as well as every standards bodies in the world should have set a definitive cycle count standard for PCR tests in March 2020.  As long as cycle counts can be manipulated (raised and lowered) results from PCR can never be considered to be neither "accurate" or reliable between two labs using different cycle count thresholds or even the tests themselves.

Why this is allowed to continue is beyond me.  It's akin to using equipment that is incorrectly calibrated an insisted that the inaccurate measurement are perfectly acceptable.  Imagine having a machine that reads blood sugar that has been calibrated but is actually off by 20 mg/DL but "experts" say "don't worry a discrepancy of +/- 20 mg/DL is perfectly accurate for determining if you have diabetes."  Further imagine that every FBS blood testing device is allowed to vary +/- 20 mg/DL because the WHO and the CDC says it's perfectly acceptable..  Actual accurate blood sugar readings would be impossible to obtain.

PCRs test must follow the same rigorous calibration and standardization.  All PCR tests world-wide need to be standardized at one, single, universally agreed upon cycle count.  Using PCR tests that vary from 25 to 45 cycle counts between labs and testing bodies is like saying that using a blood glucose meters that varies by as much as +/- 20 mg/DL is a perfectly acceptable measure of blood sugar. 
If the variability between blood glucose tests and PCR tests where the same, people would be dying of misdiagnosed diabetes, dying of insulin shock, or would be incorrectly diagnosed as having diabetes when they in fact do not. 
I'm utterly amazed that both doctors, researchers, and health care professionals are not shocked.  But instead they say nothing.  What in God's name has happened to this entire profession?  It's incorrigible and should not be occurring.  Yet here we are.

You want to share with us the source of your information? I suspect it's pretty dodgy.  I write this because I've got a link here to an article by someone who is qualified to discourse on the matter and he disagrees with what you wrote or quoted.

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Reliable Despite the Commotion About Ct Values

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/covid-19-pcr-test-reliable-despite-commotion-about-ct-values

[hioctane]

On 7/10/2021 at 2:18 AM, connda said:

PCR test are no more accurate then the non-standardized cycle counts that their results are based upon.
Cycle counts are not standardized. The WHO as well as every standards bodies in the world should have set a definitive cycle count standard for PCR tests in March 2020.  As long as cycle counts can be manipulated (raised and lowered) results from PCR can never be considered to be neither "accurate" or reliable between two labs using different cycle count thresholds or even the tests themselves.

Why this is allowed to continue is beyond me.  It's akin to using equipment that is incorrectly calibrated an insisted that the inaccurate measurement are perfectly acceptable.  Imagine having a machine that reads blood sugar that has been calibrated but is actually off by 20 mg/DL but "experts" say "don't worry a discrepancy of +/- 20 mg/DL is perfectly accurate for determining if you have diabetes."  Further imagine that every FBS blood testing device is allowed to vary +/- 20 mg/DL because the WHO and the CDC says it's perfectly acceptable..  Actual accurate blood sugar readings would be impossible to obtain.

PCRs test must follow the same rigorous calibration and standardization.  All PCR tests world-wide need to be standardized at one, single, universally agreed upon cycle count.  Using PCR tests that vary from 25 to 45 cycle counts between labs and testing bodies is like saying that using a blood glucose meters that varies by as much as +/- 20 mg/DL is a perfectly acceptable measure of blood sugar. 
If the variability between blood glucose tests and PCR tests where the same, people would be dying of misdiagnosed diabetes, dying of insulin shock, or would be incorrectly diagnosed as having diabetes when they in fact do not. 
I'm utterly amazed that both doctors, researchers, and health care professionals are not shocked.  But instead they say nothing.  What in God's name has happened to this entire profession?  It's incorrigible and should not be occurring.  Yet here we are.

The reason the PCR cycle is not standard is because it is still uncertain how many means you are infectious. You can be cautious like the UK, but that means you get a lot more positives that can do nothing about. I believe the US cycle count is higher and not as sensitive. You need to find out where to target your limited resources.

 

Antigen tests should be only  used as a tool in the aresenal. Quickly find out were the most cases are and target those areas. However, testing is no substitute for vaccinations. 

[hioctane]

On 7/10/2021 at 2:31 AM, mfd101 said:

The transition from a rapid test result to a PCR test also depends on the error bias of the rapid test system.

 

The suggestions above that you only transition from rapid test to PCR if the rapid test result is positive assumes that the rapid test is biased to finding people positive who really aren't.

 

But what if the bias is towards finding people negative who are really positive? In that case the suggestions above would give people a false view of their state of health, with no follow-up.

 

Which - depending on just how inaccurate the rapid tests are - suggests to me that they may not be much use at all.

FYI, there are rapid PCR tests too. In the US, we can get the PCR results in a couple of hours. This usually involves having the testing equipment onsite vs sending the samples to an offsite lab.

 

Antigen tests generally creates false negatives (because not as sensitive). It is hard to get false positives. So if you get a negative with symptoms, you should follow up with a PCR test. The real use of these quick tests is to quickly test a large sample of people. This determines how rapidly it has spread in your local community. If it is high, they should probably some form of lockdown for the area and target it for vaccinations.

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, hioctane said:

The reason the PCR cycle is not standard is because it is still uncertain how many means you are infectious. You can be cautious like the UK, but that means you get a lot more positives that can do nothing about. I believe the US cycle count is higher and not as sensitive. You need to find out where to target your limited resources.

 

Antigen tests should be only  used as a tool in the aresenal. Quickly find out were the most cases are and target those areas. However, testing is no substitute for vaccinations. 

As the article I linked to states, the reason that there isn't a standard CT count is the following:

 

"Different laboratories have set up different PCR tests to look for the coronavirus, using different probe-and-primer combinations to look for different genes in the coronavirus’ genome on different PCR machines. Unsurprisingly, when 26 Ontario laboratories that test for the coronavirus participated in a proficiency test, they saw a variability of Ct values of up to eight cycles across them when testing the same specimen. Samples that are known to be positive and negative for the coronavirus are run alongside the unknown samples, and their behaviour during the run also affects interpretation of the results."

 

Clearly Connda got his misinformation from denialist sources which claim that PCR tests are giving way too many false positives.

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by placeholder

[rumak]

On 7/10/2021 at 2:18 PM, connda said:

What in God's name has happened to this entire profession? 

Well,  i know what has happened.   But ,  of course not permitted to say  !

 

Where was it again, that all the intelligent people were rounded up and taken away?

 

"Honey......... would you see who's at the door " 

[Trip Hop]

On 7/10/2021 at 8:31 AM, mfd101 said:

The transition from a rapid test result to a PCR test also depends on the error bias of the rapid test system.

 

The suggestions above that you only transition from rapid test to PCR if the rapid test result is positive assumes that the rapid test is biased to finding people positive who really aren't.

 

But what if the bias is towards finding people negative who are really positive? In that case the suggestions above would give people a false view of their state of health, with no follow-up.

 

Which - depending on just how inaccurate the rapid tests are - suggests to me that they may not be much use at all.

There is a growing consensus that a viral load as measured by PCR of Ct<27 should be considered as infectious. There is a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of some LFTs, especially the Chinese made Innova brand. Avacta in the UK however have recently CE marked a 20 minute anterior nasal LFT with clinical studies that demonstrate at this level it has 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity i.e. correctly identified all positive cases considered to be infectious with only 1% false positives. It is believed to be at present the most accurate LFT in the world and home use certification is currently being sought.