[alyx]

Is nobody else bothered by the logic in the 3rd paragraph?

> As with all currently available tests, it’s not yet clear how long a person needs to be infected before testing positive, or whether someone who's infected could be identified by the test before displaying symptoms.

[sliken]

A recently saw a paper calling that COVID-19 was easy to detect early in the course with an oral swap. But later in the disease course it was easier to detect with a fecal test. Turns out a lung scan was more accurate than either.

[eric-hu]

It bothers me too reading about the testing methodology on various countries. In China anal swabs tested positive in released infected patients, while they were repeatedly testing negative with oral swabs. This has come up in their "reinfection" investigations, which may have really been partial recoveries appearing as full recoveries according to oral swab tests.

[osrec]

I suppose they haven't yet had a chance to test it fully in the field, so they don't know the error rates. Doesn't necessarily mean the test is useless.

[usrusr]

What exactly is it that bothers you? Were you hoping for a test that could flag a person as soon as the first body cell was invaded by a copy of the virus?