Whatever consumers' views about COVID-19 testing, we should NOT support policies based on testing, such as return to work options, and we should NOT support the narrative that "testing" is some kind of magical key to reopening the economy, or we will be faced with the choice of relying on fantasy or delaying openings for much longer than is being discussed now.
Right now ALL COVID-19 testing should be taken with a grain of salt because it has proven wildly inaccurate and the conclusions that can legitimately be drawn from such testing is limited to one person's results of either a specific COVID-19 virus test or COVID-19 antibody test administered on one date that indicated one result.
There is no definitive evidence that someone who "tested" negative was truly negative, or vice versa, there is no indication that the person the very next day won't test positive, there is no definitive evidence that a person can or cannot become reinfected. Regarding the antibody tests, even when antibodies are detected, the tests cannot definitively state that the presence of such antibodies indicates any level of immunity from COVID-19, nor whether such antibodies will last.
The current urgency for flooding the market with tests is foolish based on the quality of current COVID-19 testing and policies based on such inaccuracies can only foster arbitrary methods of taking actions that can negatively impact individuals.
A good example of the arbitrary bad policy that comes from ignoring the inaccuracy of current testing has been floated by NY's Mayor Bill De Blasio requiring "testing" before a public employee can return to work.(see "Politico," NYC NYC requiring public employee coronavirus testing," Nick Niedzwiadek and Madina Toure, 3/6/2020.)
The tests both for the virus and for antibodies are notoriously unreliable. When it comes to COVID-19 testing for detection of the virus, from "Business Insider," (4/2/2020) to the "Washington Post," 3/26/2020, to "The Guardian," 4/5/2020, to NPR, 4/15/2020, we're being warned about inaccuracies in COVID-19 testing.
Similarly, when it comes to antibody testing, report after report states that the tests don't work, such as reported in the UK on April 6, 2020, by Camilla Hodgson and George Parker, "UK government admits Covid-19 antibody tests don’t work," "Financial Times," or, "Antibody Test, Seen as Key to Reopening Country, Does Not Yet Deliver," Steve Eder, Megan Twohey, Apoorva Mandavilli, 4/19/2020, "The NY Times," or, "What Immunity to COVID-19 Really Means: The presence of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus could provide some protection, but scientists need more data," Stacey McKenna, 4/10/2020, "Scientific American."
Therefore requiring some people or all people to take such a test as a condition of returning to work does nothing to add protection from COVID-19 spread and could easily result in unfair stigma, unfair delay in returning to work, unfair requirements for continuous and repeated "testing," and other non public health-related agendas.
This is not a case of better than nothing…An unfairly administered, or processed or flawed test is worse than nothing because its results falsely indicate that people can RELY on such results.
Even if there was today a test with reliable results, reliance on such test would be inappropriate in terms of policy because no presence of COVID-19 or the presence of antibodies today means little for tomorrow, let alone longer into the future. If you don't test positive for COVID-19 one day, who knows if you will test positive for the virus the next unless you are tested again?
We cannot know if you are COVID-19 free beyond the moment of taking the test, because this is a contagion and you can become infected and reach thresholds detected by the test at any time. There is no guaranteed time period that a negative test is good for. Yet, the frequency of testing is not part of policy ideas like De Blasio's and the costs of time, test kits, and associated other costs of administering daily tests seems impractical and unreasonable, especially before the tests are deemed reliable.At best and if there is a reliable test, a policy of testing someone before that person returns to work is only a one-day assurance.
Relying on some alleged "immunity," discerned from an antibody test is also an opportunity for unjustified reliance on test results, even if those tests become more accurate because it is unknown what levels of antibodies are necessary to amount to "immunity," and because again, it is unknown whether the antibodies will remain sufficient long-term for a lasting immunity.
Neither a false sense of security that we're not infected nor that we're immune is helpful to consumers. Instead, we should be against any policy that uses COVID-19 testing as a barrier to employment, freedom to travel, or invasion of privacy or anything else and view the same as suspect and likely the result of an ulterior motive, such as making it appear that leadership is "addressing" a problem, or is attempting to keep certain people out of the workplace, or perhaps even using testing as an excuse to stigmatize certain people, just a few of many possible and suspect scenarios.
The science is unequivocal, today the testing is unreliable and its conclusions are unclear. Therefore, social distancing, sanitary conditions and precautions, are the best tools available for consumers as we reopen the US and all arguments that testing, current testing, is key to reopening the economy are nothing but a false narrative because of the inaccuracies of testing and the limitations of testing and its conclusions.
