Testing, Antibodies & Convalescent Plasma as Treatment Option?

@mayofeb2020 Thanks very much for that info. I know I can't depend on the actual negative or positive result to be guaranteed, but knowing whether or not I had a somewhat reputable test will make a little difference. In the meantime, it's quarantine city, and raw paws....

@zep and everyone else - as I said above "Stay tuned for further developments" - the tests are being tested and reviewed by multiple organizations as I write this. I keep checking for results. Keep in mind - these were all released under emergency authority without the usual independent testing and review by any government agency or any independent testing laboratory. Preliminary testing done by the manufacturers or their chosen labs were not up to the same rigorous standards as usual. Even the early verification tests by a couple of universities didn't hit all the benchmarks - for example, testing against other non-covid Corona viruses, testing of two or more manufacturers lots of the same product, and testing under multiple conditions (e.g. number of days since infection, number of days symptom-free, varying ages of patients, other known health conditions...).
My daughter is checking weekly with contacts at two test developers to learn when they will feel their tests are "ready for prime time" and when there will be a reliable supply available.
I will certainly post here as soon as I see definitive writing on the matter.
Sue

@mayofeb2020- More accurate means nothing really in relation to what needs to be an accurate test result. This is an almost, but not there yet. Unless there is a true standard with proven results tests just aren't "there" yet.

@sueinmn- It's so frustrating to have "almost" reliable testing. It's like almost pregnant.

@merpreb Ha Ha!

@mayofeb2020 @zep @bvh176 We need to remember that development of such tests is usually measured in many months, if not years, not in days or weeks. Rushing products to market may work for the latest fad or gadget, but not for a critical medical test. There are many, many steps in proper validation for medical tests, and they take a long time. Before release, the test results generally undergo peer review as well. All of this was bypassed under emergency orders, and tests were allowed to be released with the assurance of validity by the developer alone.

In any other time, the current Covid-19 antibody tests would not see the light of day, much less be promoted, until tested by an independent laboratory and having the results peer-reviewed. Shortcuts can have serious, even deadly consequences. If a vulnerable person were to get a "false positive" result and stop taking precautions, then get Covid-19 ... I don't even want to think about it.

We also need a few more answers about what being positive for antibodies really means. Can one be reinfected, or do the antibodies confer immunity? If immune, for how long? If you can get reinfected, would it be more or less severe? And on and on... Again, these answers are beginning to emerge as scientists do their research, both for a vaccine and studying immunity. So far, what is coming out looks positive - that is, in primates and mice, antibodies seem to prevent reinfection by the virus, but until we know for sure, the test, at least for those of us at high risk, is immaterial.

As always, stay tuned for further developments

Sue

Here is the latest podcast about testing and explains "false negatives" and other results

Merry, thanks for the laugh...