- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 50,664
- Reaction score
- 10,690
There is a limit of detection for any type of test. With a rapid test, you have a dye that has an extremely specific binding site for a target molecule. What this means is that you have to have enough target molecules binding to visualize the dye by eye.Literally just talking to a coworker about this topic... Is there a "viral load" threshold that has to be met for a positive test, and can it be met with the natural virus'/bacteria we have on our person's that our immune system is handling? Like how we all supposedly have staph on our skin but aren't affected by it, we'd fail a test for staph germs even tho it's nothing to worry about? If that's possible, of course "they'd" want everyone to have "positive" tests to perpetuate the narrative so make sure you test often just in case you've been exposed, with or without symptoms...
PCR, in contrast, they use a technique to make target DNA copy itself many times over so that whatever you’re looking for is amplified many orders of magnitude.
The reason that in either case it’s highly unlikely that you’d receive a false positive from some other microorganism is because what is used to quantify a signal as positive is so specific to your target- a lock and key is the analogy commonly used.
In general, a rapid test is more likely to show a false negative because it’s less sensitive, and a PCR test is more likely to show a false positive because it’s amplifying signals that could come from contamination.