[HN Gopher] USPS is offering Covid tests again
___________________________________________________________________
USPS is offering Covid tests again
Author : madars
Score : 22 points
Date : 2023-09-26 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (special.usps.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (special.usps.com)
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| Complete waste of taxpayer money to line the pockets of big
| pharma.
| jrflowers wrote:
| I am glad that the postal service has chosen to release
| commemorative post-pandemic covid tests, it will be nice to
| display on my mantle as a reminder of the time past in which
| covid was a serious health concern for the country.
| some_random wrote:
| I'm glad they're offering these again, but in my experience covid
| tests have been pretty useless. I'm pretty sure I've had covid
| twice and despite daily testing I never actually tested positive,
| and talking to others they've had similar experiences.
| autoexec wrote:
| The negatives can't really be trusted, but if they say you've
| got it, you've got it.
|
| The home tests are still useful, if for no other reason than
| because a lot of people cannot get a test at all, or can't get
| one unless they have symptoms.
|
| My insurance company is like that. At one point in the last
| year I'd recently been with someone who tested positive two
| days later, and while I felt fine, I wanted a test before
| visiting a highly vulnerable relative and was told the test
| would be entirely out of pocket since I wasn't feeling sick.
| People who can't afford a PCR out of pocket can at least try
| several at home tests for _some_ piece of mind.
| otachack wrote:
| In my experience: when I had COVID symptoms and took one of
| these it was positive. So was my partner.
|
| I think at the end of the day these aren't going to be perfect
| but if you combine it with a personal evaluation (do I feel
| sick, are people that were near me sick) it gives you better
| decision making than just playing dumb.
| cameldrv wrote:
| The antigen tests definitely seem to be much less effective
| than they used to be. There are so many false negatives, it's
| not clear that the test has any value. Many people have covid
| symptoms, test negative, and then figure they're good to go
| visit grandma in the nursing home or whatever, when the
| symptoms alone are probably a more reliable guide.
|
| We use molecular (Lucira) home tests, which are much more
| sensitive, and even those have given us very inconsistent and
| confusing results on two separate occasions.
|
| One thing that has helped anecdotally among my family and
| friends of mine is to do use a throat swab, and first thing in
| the morning before you eat or drink anything. A number of
| times, many other tests were negative, but that one was
| positive.
| vaalbara wrote:
| I had been doing a poor job swabbing too shallow, and I wonder
| if that's also a significant contributor to false negatives.
| This video helped me a lot [0]. In brief: don't swab just the
| shallow, hairy skin of the nose, and don't swab upwards.
| Instead, go slow and go straight back perpendicular to your
| face about 2-3cm to get to the mucosa of the respiratory
| lining, twirl for 15 seconds. It helped to see this ENT surgeon
| do it slowly and calmly, while talking through it. He goes much
| deeper than I had ever done on my own.
|
| 0. https://twitter.com/DrEricLevi/status/1477057391212449793
| bdcravens wrote:
| I'm in the same boat I think. I never had COVID, even after
| taking PCR tests when I was feeling ill. (I have CF, so
| respiratory infections are common, so entirely possible it was
| something else)
|
| Best one was the day my wife was diagnosed just before a minor
| surgical procedure. That day we went and received 15-minute PCR
| tests (the kind you'd get if you were traveling): I was
| negative and she was confirmed as positive. I can only assume I
| had it at one point and still had "natural" immunity. (We were
| both previously vaccinated, and her COVID case was very mild)
| ciguy wrote:
| There is a note saying the tests may be expired, but it's ok
| because the FDA extended the expiry date. I wonder who lobbied to
| have that date extended, in my experience it is incredibly
| difficult to get the FDA to revisit things like this. Someone
| (Maybe USPS?) must have over ordered and didn't want to throw the
| extras away.
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| The US military has a program to grade the efficacy of
| "expired" medication.
|
| The generous version is that it's only feasible for a company
| to make a guarantee of efficacy to a point and the cynical
| version is that people will buy more as long as the expiration
| is some economically tolerable length. The .MIL has enough to
| make the efficacy tests worthwhile.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...
| autoexec wrote:
| > I wonder who lobbied to have that date extended
|
| According to the FDA, the manufacturers are doing ongoing
| stability testing, and as they find the tests are still
| effective after the date they initially estimated, they can
| contact the FDA to share their results and request that the FDA
| authorize a longer shelf life. This actually _costs_ the
| manufacturer money since they 'd be paid when people replaced
| the "expired" product they threw away, but they're doing it
| anyway because not everything is a weird conspiracy (and maybe
| also because the most shelf stable products have an advantage
| when it comes to what people order for their stockpiles)
| cameldrv wrote:
| No this is normal. When you introduce a new diagnostic test,
| part of the approval process is that you have to run an aging
| study on the reagents/test cartridge.
|
| The normal procedure is to set some of the tests aside when
| they first come off the production line. Typically every six
| months, you run a new study to validate that the tests you set
| aside still work. If they do, you can file an amendment to your
| approval to extend the expiration date. If this weren't
| allowed, you'd have to wait to bring your test on the market
| for two years or however long you wanted the shelf life to be.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Damn you know that shit must be serious then if the gov is taking
| a break from pretending it's gone or harmless.
|
| I wonder how much it'll help at this point. Most of the people I
| know with "real jobs" don't test anymore. What are you gonna do
| with a positive anyway, call out of work? They don't have sick
| leave.
| autoexec wrote:
| > What are you gonna do with a positive anyway, call out of
| work? They don't have sick leave.
|
| This is why I don't do indoor dining when community spread is
| high/climbing. I'd love to give local businesses more money,
| but since they don't let their workers stay home when they're
| sick, I can't trust that the restaurant workers aren't
| diseased. If I had faith that employees could call in sick
| without risking losing their job and/or getting evicted I'd
| feel a lot more comfortable having a night out.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is it any more serious than flu/rhino/other
| corona/strep/RSV/noto/rota/adeno/etc?
|
| Why are there no tests being offered for all the other airborne
| viruses?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-26 23:01 UTC)