back
2 comments
PCR tests can come back positive for several months post-infection, so there may be no point in testing people in that post-infection period, because it will come back with too many false positives to be useful. 180 days sounds long for that, but people do test positive for months sometimes.

The reason you can test positive for so long is that it takes time for remnant RNA from the virus to totally leave your system, and even though it's not replicating (you aren't infected or infectious), the PCR test is just detecting the RNA.

… which is a good argument for antigen testing (as your entire pre-entry testing regime, or in conjunction with a positive PCR history).

The other difficulty (impossibility?) is in segmenting the chronically infected vs those that are just working out the remnant junk of their recovered infection.

You mean antibody, not antigen?
No

(I’m not ruling out any value of antibody testing, just saying I did mean antigen)

Pointless pedantry, just because I've been watching TWiV: the PCR test is detecting virus RNA because coronaviruses have RNA, and there's no DNA there. The rest I absolutely agree with.
More pointless pedantry from TViV, as I listen frequently as well: the hosts always point out that RT-PCR tests for the presence of viral RNA, but viral RNA particles being inside your nose or mouth doesn't necessarily mean they are infectious. The scale of CT values is 0–100 and lower CT values means more RNA copies. This is used a proxy for infectivity, though it's not terribly scientific. Furthermore, CT values are rarely (if ever) included on the test results.
More pointless pedantry: PCR only works on DNA, so if you want to test an RNA sample, you’ll need to translate it into DNA first before amplifying it.
You're right, of course! Edited.
Sure, and in isolation, it's even a reasonable guideline. The issue is that combined with most of the other covid guidance, the incentives are misaligned.

The choices become

1. Follow the majority guidance, wear masks, avoid large gatherings, get vaccinated, get tested often.

In which case you will have to continue paying for testing to travel (and risk not being able to travel at the last minute)

OR...

2. Intentionally go get covid (usually by neglecting all the above guidance). Get a positive result. Avoid expensive testing, have easier travel, get easier access to gatherings.

Speaking only from my pre-Omicron experience, even mild breakthrough COVID was no joke. I spent a month extremely tired, was prescribed a steroid inhaler and only now feel about 95% back to normal (about a month later).

Choice 2 is valid, yes, but unless Omicron is much, much more mild for most people I wouldn't make that choice for myself.

Luckily I got an official PCR test confirming positivity at the very end of my COVID journey so I can take advantage of that horrible month.

Out of curiosity, are you in an at-risk group (age, health, etc.)? No need to disclose specifics, if you’re happy to answer.
Not at-risk by any means, but it was a terrible experience. Worse than any flu I've had. I think that it would have been very serious if I didn't have two shots in me.