Coronavirus Outbreak

[Josh]

It’s become rather obvious that the tests are inaccurate. It would have been far wiser to stick to symptoms for diagnosing disease, which is how pretty much every other disease is diagnosed.

Exactly what other disease do you administer at home self tests for?

[justme]

Exactly what other disease do you administer at home self tests for?

diabetics do home monitoring.
pt/inr can be tested at home to monitor coumadin/warfarin levels.
urine pregnancy tests (not that pregnancy is a disease, bc it's not)

i would think the home tests for covid would be the same concept.

please do note that in this posting i am not making a statement on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the covid home tests. i'm only pushing back on the fact that there ARE other home self tests done regularly.

[silentreader]

Exactly what other disease do you administer at home self tests for?

diabetics do home monitoring.
pt/inr can be tested at home to monitor coumadin/warfarin levels.
urine pregnancy tests (not that pregnancy is a disease, bc it's not)

i would think the home tests for covid would be the same concept.

please do note that in this posting i am not making a statement on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the covid home tests. i'm only pushing back on the fact that there ARE other home self tests done regularly.

BP monitoring

[Josh]

Exactly what other disease do you administer at home self tests for?

diabetics do home monitoring.
pt/inr can be tested at home to monitor coumadin/warfarin levels.
urine pregnancy tests (not that pregnancy is a disease, bc it's not)

i would think the home tests for covid would be the same concept.

please do note that in this posting i am not making a statement on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the covid home tests. i'm only pushing back on the fact that there ARE other home self tests done regularly.

There are no at home self tests done to detect infectious disease.

Instead, in the past, people were taught to identify symptoms.

[Ken]

It’s become rather obvious that the tests are inaccurate. It would have been far wiser to stick to symptoms for diagnosing disease, which is how pretty much every other disease is diagnosed.

Exactly what other disease do you administer at home self tests for?

The point of cheap and easy rapid home testing for Covid is that people want to be responsible and not spread the infection to others if they happen to be infected. That is a good thing. It isn't 100%, but it is better than relying on symptoms, especially since one can be infected and asymptomatic. Yes, the PCR tests are more accurate but that means going into a testing center, waiting in line, and then waiting for your results, which most people aren't going to actually do unless they are really sick.

I would think you would be in favor of home testing over lab-based PCR testing since you are such an antigovernment privacy advocate judging from your responses today on the "mark of the beast" thread. Unlike with lab-based PCR testing, home rapid test results don't get entered into any government databases.

[Robert]

There are no at home self tests done to detect infectious disease.

Instead, in the past, people were taught to identify symptoms.

everlywell.com has a lot of home tests for a various number of diseases and conditions. They have 40+ test kits one can purchase.

[Josh]

There are no at home self tests done to detect infectious disease.

Instead, in the past, people were taught to identify symptoms.

everlywell.com has a lot of home tests for a various number of diseases and conditions. They have 40+ test kits one can purchase.

There is no widespread movement of people doing this, however. Most people get tested for infectious disease under controlled conditions from a medical provider. And the norm is to diagnose based on symptoms anyway.

[Josh]

It’s become rather obvious that the tests are inaccurate. It would have been far wiser to stick to symptoms for diagnosing disease, which is how pretty much every other disease is diagnosed.

Exactly what other disease do you administer at home self tests for?

The point of cheap and easy rapid home testing for Covid is that people want to be responsible and not spread the infection to others if they happen to be infected. That is a good thing. It isn't 100%, but it is better than relying on symptoms, especially since one can be infected and asymptomatic. Yes, the PCR tests are more accurate but that means going into a testing center, waiting in line, and then waiting for your results, which most people aren't going to actually do unless they are really sick.

I would think you would be in favor of home testing over lab-based PCR testing since you are such an antigovernment privacy advocate judging from your responses today on the "mark of the beast" thread. Unlike with lab-based PCR testing, home rapid test results don't get entered into any government databases.

My objection to cheap and easy at home testing is that it is inaccurate.

The CDC just announced that you can go back to work (including health care workers) if you test positive as long as you are asymptomatic.

[Robert]

There is no widespread movement of people doing this, however. Most people get tested for infectious disease under controlled conditions from a medical provider. And the norm is to diagnose based on symptoms anyway.

I understand what you are saying, but most times I go to a DR, they run tests to verify if one is available. Tests are good tools, but should not be solely depended on. Symptoms are good guides to help diagnose an issue, whether human, animal, or vehicle. Tests can also be good tools. Neither is 100% effective, but both can help understand a condition.

I see no problem with people using tests. If someone is saying any test is the ultimate decision maker, I would disagree with that. Tests are knowledge. Wisdom is often needed for a good diagnosis.

[Soloist]

Every single person who believes they have had covid twice also did not have it confirmed by lab testing. I certainly have heard enough people believe they got covid prior to it being in the USA to be a little skeptical. My point of asking is more about proof of increased risk to unvaccinated prior infection for repeat infections which is incredibly rare from my research while reinfection with the vaccine is quite common...