continously testing positive for CV19

[advent2016]

Asking for a friend
A man is tested for Covid-19 and found positive but without symptoms

He self isolates for 14 days but shows no symptoms
He is tested again and still show positive without symptoms?

What should he do?

Does he have to self isolate for ever / or until he shows no symptoms?

Or can he suggest that the tests are all false positive doesn't work for him and he can carry on as if not infected?

He couldn't find the answer online.


I on the other hand have had multiple types (antigen/antibody/other) of tests since March and all have been negative although I feel crap most of the time

[contentguy]

You could try calling NHS 111.

I think it would be irresponsible for your friend to stop isolating if there's a possibility that he's still infectious.
Or try and get another test.

Guy

[Strawberry]

Typhoid Mary springs to mind, or is it Covid-19 Colin?

[advent2016]

He's tried calling every number, asked our tame doctors and nurses. His symptoms seem to slip through the holes

[JontyR]

Why is he constantly being tested if he has no symptoms?

[jeanphillipe]

I know somone similiar, its been 6 weeks keeps testing positive, the initial week of standard flu like symptoms. But clear for 6 weeks now...

These tests dont appear to be accurate.

[j_181]

Many people who test positive never have symptoms but are still potentially infectious. Also possible that he is still in the pre-symptomatic stage.

"test doesn't work for him" is a non-starter, no reason any person is more likely to get false positive than anyone else. I've seen 99.9% specificity claimed for the UK test, in this case the probability of getting two false positives is (1-0.999)*(1-0.999) = 0.000001 i.e. 1 out of every 1million people who are tested twice will get two false positives.

Also, my understanding is that it is now a criminal offence to not self-isolate after testing positive?

[j_181]

I know somone similiar, its been 6 weeks keeps testing positive, the initial week of standard flu like symptoms. But clear for 6 weeks now...

These tests dont appear to be accurate.

The probability of 1 person getting 6 consecutive false positives is astronomically small. You said he had flu-like symptoms, so presumably you think the first few tests were correct?

I would say much more likely that your acquaintance is taking a longer than usual time to clear the virus.

[sanchez]

Hasn’t it been reported that the tests are continually picking up signs of old or dead virus within the body.

[Waterhouse]

Hasn’t it been reported that the tests are continually picking up signs of old or dead virus within the body.

Indeed it has - yes.

The test is so sensitive to the virus that it gives back a high degree of false positives in this way. At least that is my understanding from what I’ve read about it.

[j_181]

Hasn’t it been reported that the tests are continually picking up signs of old or dead virus within the body.

The test detects specific viral RNA sequences and cannot differentiate between infectious and non-infectious material. RNA is quite unstable so will not hang around for a long time after the infection has been cleared, but yes there likely will be a lag period between when a person stops being infectious, and when they stop testing positive.

[j_181]

Indeed it has - yes.

The test is so sensitive to the virus that it gives back a high degree of false positives in this way. At least that is my understanding from what I’ve read about it.

This is not really a false positive. The test is for the presence of viral RNA - not for a person's infectiousnes. A false positive would be when you get a positive test despite there being no viral RNA present.

[Waterhouse]

This is not really a false positive. The test is for the presence of viral RNA - not for a person's infectiousnes. A false positive would be when you get a positive test despite there being no viral RNA present.

false positive
noun
a test result which wrongly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is present.

From Wikipedia...

A false positive is an error in data reporting in which a test result incorrectly indicates the presence of a condition such as a disease when the disease is not present

[bhudda]

false positive
noun
a test result which wrongly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is present.

From Wikipedia...

A false positive is an error in data reporting in which a test result incorrectly indicates the presence of a condition such as a disease when the disease is not present

So a positive result tells us that the person being tested either has the disease or had it very recently - both useful bits of info when it comes to tracing recent contacts and preventing the spread.

[j_181]

false positive
noun
a test result which wrongly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is present.

From Wikipedia...

A false positive is an error in data reporting in which a test result incorrectly indicates the presence of a condition such as a disease when the disease is not present

Yes. The attribute in question here is not covid infectiousness, it is presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. A PCR test does not test for infectiousness and no-one claims it does.

[JontyR]

Many people who test positive never have symptoms but are still potentially infectious. Also possible that he is still in the pre-symptomatic stage.

Yes, I understand that. And here we may have a case that shows the needs for systems and processes to change but in all the diagrams and info relating to who has to self-isolate in households or as a part of track and trace and when testing needs to be done there isn't an example where I've seen someone be requested to undertake repeat screening. Especially when capacity is so stretched.

If he was working in a care or health environment or having private testing that's a different matter. 

Of course I am happy to be wrong on all of this and genuinely grateful if someone can correct me or improve my understanding.

[j_181]

JontyR, I don't think we disagree on that. The question was notshould he have been tested, but rather what to do now that he has.

[londonroad]

Should speak to his GP for guidance.

[king tarzan]

Yes, I understand that. And here we may have a case that shows the needs for systems and processes to change but in all the diagrams and info relating to who has to self-isolate in households or as a part of track and trace and when testing needs to be done there isn't an example where I've seen someone be requested to undertake repeat screening. Especially when capacity is so stretched.

If he was working in a care or health environment or having private testing that's a different matter. 

Of course I am happy to be wrong on all of this and genuinely grateful if someone can correct me or improve my understanding.

Like your name JontyR

The real jonty Rhodes arguably the best feilder that ever lived.. great south African team that was..