CV19 Testing in the DR - Clear as Mud?
The prerecorded Presidential addressed that was broadcast to the country last Friday seemed to be a bit light on new information regarding the progression of CV19 in this country and the current thinking of the longer term plans to contain the spread of this virus and deal with economic and social fallout that is simmering in the background.
There was however a snippet of new information that I missed while listening to the address in Spanish. It was not until later when reading a suitably garbled English translation that this new information came to my attention. It wasn't until the next day that I became confused and attempted to figure things out.
The Presidential address made reference to far more completed CV19 tests that had previously been announced by the Ministry of Health. For at least a month and perhaps for longer than that, there has been two testing paths being used in this country. The standard PCR tests that were being referenced in the briefings and in the media and an apparently clandestine approach making use of what are conveniently known as Quick Tests. The President made reference to some 40,000+ quick tests that have been administered. Where did they come from, how do they work, are they reliable?
The standard PCR tests are generally considered to produce reliable test results provided that the sample gathering technique is administered properly and the resulting test kits are analyzed properly and not cross contaminated. The analysis landscape for the quick tests is much different. The test kit itself returns the result in as little as 30 minutes, an hour or a little longer depending on the design of the test kit. These tests are being produced by a myriad of companies and all are not equal in sampling, analysis and result.
I was not able to find much Govt information provided for these quick tests other than several references to batches of test kits being procured from different sources at different times. About 20,000 quick test kits where donated by a political party some weeks ago and there have been a few references to orders for these quick tests placed by the Govt itself. Details are scant. Most of these tests, at least the discounted ones seem to be manufactured in China. Other countries produce them as well, Germany and Taiwan for example.
Standard procedure requires each new batch of quick tests received to be tested to ensure functionality and accuracy. Unlike the PCR (DNA) tests which are good to go, due the varying number of manufacturers methodologies and variations in the kits themselves, one cannot assume accuracy and functionality across all manufactures and even consistency from lot to lot by the same manufacturer. I was only able to find one public reference to verifying quick tests in this country and that was in regards to the batch of donated kits from the opposition political party. There is no mention of the results of that verification process or whether the donated kits were ever used.
I was infinitely more successful in getting details about quick test provided by other countries. Spain and UK were forced to return large purchases of these tests as they failed the accuracy/reliability checks. I believe in both of these instances the kits were sourced from different manufacturers in China. Taiwan's quick tests and those produced by Germany are noted as being very reliable but considerably more expensive. In countries where funding for testing is limited to begin with, it is not unreasonable to expect the money will tend to be spent where it produces the greatest number of results for the cost.
Had the President not made reference to these previously unreported 40,000 results, would the Ministry of Health still chosen to make those results public at this time? I can't say. I do find the cause and effect as well as the timing to be curious. Are some or all of these quick test results accurate? I cannot say as there are no statements from the Govt easily attainable by the public to confirm or deny that each lot of quick tests was verified prior to being used for general testing. We don't know anything about these quick test kits including where they came from other than a best guess - probably from somewhere in China.
The numbers suggest that twice as many quick tests are being performed as PCR tests. If it is the Govt's intention to rely heavily on these cheaper and less labor intensive quick tests, then it is incumbent on the Govt to provide much more detail regarding the origins of the tests being used and their accuracy/failure rate. The information that I have been able to glean seems to suggest that when these quick tests do not perform as intended, they fail suggesting a negative test result as opposed to an inconclusive result. It would therefore be easy to record a failed quick test result as a negative diagnosis for CV19 if the test kits are not verified properly as the different lots are put into the field to be used.
Are two thirds of the reported CV19 tests thus far conducted in this country accurate? I honestly have no idea.
The prerecorded Presidential addressed that was broadcast to the country last Friday seemed to be a bit light on new information regarding the progression of CV19 in this country and the current thinking of the longer term plans to contain the spread of this virus and deal with economic and social fallout that is simmering in the background.
There was however a snippet of new information that I missed while listening to the address in Spanish. It was not until later when reading a suitably garbled English translation that this new information came to my attention. It wasn't until the next day that I became confused and attempted to figure things out.
The Presidential address made reference to far more completed CV19 tests that had previously been announced by the Ministry of Health. For at least a month and perhaps for longer than that, there has been two testing paths being used in this country. The standard PCR tests that were being referenced in the briefings and in the media and an apparently clandestine approach making use of what are conveniently known as Quick Tests. The President made reference to some 40,000+ quick tests that have been administered. Where did they come from, how do they work, are they reliable?
The standard PCR tests are generally considered to produce reliable test results provided that the sample gathering technique is administered properly and the resulting test kits are analyzed properly and not cross contaminated. The analysis landscape for the quick tests is much different. The test kit itself returns the result in as little as 30 minutes, an hour or a little longer depending on the design of the test kit. These tests are being produced by a myriad of companies and all are not equal in sampling, analysis and result.
I was not able to find much Govt information provided for these quick tests other than several references to batches of test kits being procured from different sources at different times. About 20,000 quick test kits where donated by a political party some weeks ago and there have been a few references to orders for these quick tests placed by the Govt itself. Details are scant. Most of these tests, at least the discounted ones seem to be manufactured in China. Other countries produce them as well, Germany and Taiwan for example.
Standard procedure requires each new batch of quick tests received to be tested to ensure functionality and accuracy. Unlike the PCR (DNA) tests which are good to go, due the varying number of manufacturers methodologies and variations in the kits themselves, one cannot assume accuracy and functionality across all manufactures and even consistency from lot to lot by the same manufacturer. I was only able to find one public reference to verifying quick tests in this country and that was in regards to the batch of donated kits from the opposition political party. There is no mention of the results of that verification process or whether the donated kits were ever used.
I was infinitely more successful in getting details about quick test provided by other countries. Spain and UK were forced to return large purchases of these tests as they failed the accuracy/reliability checks. I believe in both of these instances the kits were sourced from different manufacturers in China. Taiwan's quick tests and those produced by Germany are noted as being very reliable but considerably more expensive. In countries where funding for testing is limited to begin with, it is not unreasonable to expect the money will tend to be spent where it produces the greatest number of results for the cost.
Had the President not made reference to these previously unreported 40,000 results, would the Ministry of Health still chosen to make those results public at this time? I can't say. I do find the cause and effect as well as the timing to be curious. Are some or all of these quick test results accurate? I cannot say as there are no statements from the Govt easily attainable by the public to confirm or deny that each lot of quick tests was verified prior to being used for general testing. We don't know anything about these quick test kits including where they came from other than a best guess - probably from somewhere in China.
The numbers suggest that twice as many quick tests are being performed as PCR tests. If it is the Govt's intention to rely heavily on these cheaper and less labor intensive quick tests, then it is incumbent on the Govt to provide much more detail regarding the origins of the tests being used and their accuracy/failure rate. The information that I have been able to glean seems to suggest that when these quick tests do not perform as intended, they fail suggesting a negative test result as opposed to an inconclusive result. It would therefore be easy to record a failed quick test result as a negative diagnosis for CV19 if the test kits are not verified properly as the different lots are put into the field to be used.
Are two thirds of the reported CV19 tests thus far conducted in this country accurate? I honestly have no idea.
