To know in less time their positivity to the virus, many rely on the rapid test. But is this really that effective?
A question like this makes us understand how, although time has passed, there is still some confusion regarding the two types of tests.
It will seem strange to talk about tests and Coronavirus after two years spent with the restrictions, yet, one must never let one’s guard down. In particular, with the arrival of the Christmas holidays and with meetings with one’s family members, there may be a greater risk of contracting the virus. In fact, not surprisingly, some time ago, many virologists used to say that New Year’s dinner with the family was more risky than going to the supermarket without a mask. And, in fact, many have found themselves in this situation.
Therefore, the holiday season is a very particular period, to which greater attention must be paid more to the relative than to the stranger next to us. It’s true, today we no longer live with that nightmare of being able to get sick with Covid and things seem to be going for the best. There are no longer any restrictions even for traders and, slowly, the economy is recovering. But, as we hear on the news, it is possible that another wave of infections may visit us in this period.
In short, we haven’t completely freed ourselves from Covid, even if our lives seem to have resumed their normality. One of our ally is, in fact, the rapid test which still generates confusion. Well, before knowing it in detail, let’s read some other news concerning the world of health. Speaking of Coronavirus, ibuprofen can help against it, but it can generate new side effects. More positive news concerns cancer prevention: thanks to non-invasive tests, 14 have been detected! That said, we can focus on our quick test.
Quick Test: Still unsure how it works? Let’s try to see ourselves clearly
After the last few years spent at home, in the pharmacy, in the hospital and in front of the TV, all of us have wondered if the rapid test could be considered effective or not. Surely, many, to cut the bull’s head, as they say, have gone back to the molecular one. The latter, unlike what is the subject of our article, is declared as the 100% safer one.
And it’s not just hospitals or pharmacies that say it, but above all the World Health Organization. The molecular test is performed through a sample that concerns the respiratory tract of those who think they are positive. All this happens through an instrument very similar to a cotton swab, or the infamous swab. This, therefore, is inserted both inside our nose and in the pharyngeal area of our mouth.
We can say that, as regards the procedure, the rapid test also follows the same indications. Indeed, there is even the possibility of taking some saliva which will tell us if we are positive or not. However, the substantial difference between the two types of exams is the method of analysis. Thus, we can already begin to establish a point: the two tests cannot be considered similar or the same.
Why couldn’t the quick swab work?
A first answer could come from a reasoning that has to do with i analysis times. On the one hand we have the rapid test that allows you to know the positivity or negativity even in less than 90 minutes. On the other hand, however, the molecular type test requires 8 or even 24 hours for a more in-depth analysis.
Putting aside the talk of timing, let’s move on to what both of us they detect. The first, in fact, allows to know only some protein parts of the virus, but not the viral genome and what it is composed of. These last two things, on the other hand, can be known thanks to the molecular type test.
And then again: the rapid test has the ability to detect viral components only in small quantities, a situation that generates the so-called false negatives. Or, in still other cases we speak of false positives, even if this happens more sporadically.
In any case, to be more relaxed, it is always good to take a molecular test and be patient. Finally, we must admit that things could also change for the latter due to the subsequent completely unexpected mutations of the virus.
The information in the article is for informational purposes only and concerns scientific studies published in medical journals. Therefore, they are not a substitute for medical or specialist advice, and should not be considered in formulating treatment or diagnosis.
