I'm also surprised that there isn't more talk about the sensitivity of the standard nasopharyngeal swab + RT-PCR. When the FDA approved it, they showed it's extremely accurate... if you use swabs saturated with the virus at various concentrations. Then I read about the poor (70-80%) sensitivity in the real-world, which isn't suprising considering you (1) have variably expert technique in positioning swabs into uncomfortable body spaces, and (2) apply it to people at various stages of the disease with low viral shedding initially and also at end stages. Apparently you can swab two different areas and may raise your sensitivity 10% to 85%.
So if you are "negative" with say a 80% sensitivity, that leaves a lot of room for actually infected people to think they are in the clear. There's a reason why screening tests need to be highly accurate. I'm all in favor of at least recognizing the positives and quarantining them, but with a high R0 disease, the false negatives could be a problem.
So if you are "negative" with say a 80% sensitivity, that leaves a lot of room for actually infected people to think they are in the clear. There's a reason why screening tests need to be highly accurate. I'm all in favor of at least recognizing the positives and quarantining them, but with a high R0 disease, the false negatives could be a problem.