No less than former Secretary of Health Manuel Dayrit, the user who actually led the country’s war against severe acute respiratory disease (SARS) in 2003, said that the effects of immediate controls are “inconclusive,” basically because the control detects the presence of antibodies that our immune formula produces and not the virus that causes COVID-19.
Dayrit explained that immediate verification measures the presence of antibodies that the framework produces as opposed to the virus, while RT-PCR detects the presence of the virus in its framework.
“Then malaki na ang deperensya noon. Yung RT-PCR you run into the genuine virus, nandun talaga. Yung antibody test, ang dinestumble with mo yung antibodies opposite the virus. And yan, kinukuha mo his blood, Hindi mo nakukuha un swab,” Dayrit said.
(There’s a big difference. RT-PCR checks may stumble upon the genuine virus as they are still there. Immediate antibody testing only stumbles upon antibodies opposed to the virus and is obtained through blood and samples).
To smooth the difference between the two tests, Dayrit compared the coronavirus to a space thief, representing the human body.
Dayrit said RT-PCR tests can trap the thief while still in space, while quick tests can only see the evidence left through the thief who entered space and, in some cases, there is not even any evidence.
“Yung RT-PCR and an ang for mahuli mo yung magnanakaw habang nandun pa siya kasi yun ang papasa, ipapasa, in makakahawa sa iba. Kaya kung malaman natin na yung taong yun, dala dala pala niya” yung magnanakaw sa kanya, “yan Kailangan mong i-isolat, Dayrit said.
“How do you do the rapid antibody test while now?” “Ebidensiya lang na nandun siya, dumaan siya. Minsan nga wala pang ebidensya,” he added.
(Now, if you do a rapid antibody test, what will you get from it? You will just get evidence that the ‘thief’ has been there. But sometimes there is even no evidence.)
This means that immediate testing, if used to check if a user has recently inflamed with COVID-19, can produce false positive and false negative results, Dayrit said.
“Kasi may impeksyon, but walang ebidensya. Hindi siya antibodies that develop nag ng. Kaya yung immediate verification of useful Hindi ganun ka antibodies,” Dayrit said.
(There are other people who have had an infection, but there is no evidence because they have not developed antibodies. That’s why the rapid antibody test is so useful).
“Kaya sinasabi ng DOH, wag na masyadong gamitin yan and wag mong gagamitin yan for sabihin kung ang tao are either o hindi kasi wala kang ebidensya for sabihin ‘yun kasi wala na, wala na yung magnanakaw. All the time he’s been doing the ebidensya na dumaan but Hindi mo alam kung makaka-impeksyon pa siya,” he added.
(That’s why the DOH said: don’t use this if a user is ok or not because they have no evidence that the ‘thief’ is already gone. All you know is that there is evidence that the ‘thief’ was there however, you don’t know if that user can still infect).
If so, are they immediately useful in this pandemic?
Dayrit said immediate testing can be used to measure how many other people in a population have been exposed to the virus.
(In our analogy, this means that you can know how many houses in our city were visited by the thief. That’s useful. But we can’t say that these houses are still inflamed with the virus).
Dr. Supachai A. Basit, Dean of School of Medical Technology in Emilio Aguinaldo College in Dasmariñas, Cavite, cited some of the best practices being implemented by countries that are deemed to be winning their fight against COVID-19.
According to Basit, some first-world countries even offer their tests for free.
As per those near the Philippines, Basit pointed to Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea as some of the countries with the best practices in fighting the pandemic as these are the countries where testings are prevalent.
“[In South Korea], they have this low death toll and one of the reasons for the low number of deaths is that this is due to large-scale mass verification. They even have this mass control center behind the wheel for COVID-19,” Basit told INQUIRER.net.
“Because of these great mass tests, i.e. widespread, they have been to find contacts much more easily and quarantine others who had been exposed to COVID-19,” he added.
Meanwhile, Basit Taiwan has a “systematic and highly fluid fitness system”.
“So, of course, taxpayers have contributed to this specific formula work, but they must direct the investment to focus on the COVID-19 tests,” Basit said.
As for the burden of proof, there is a “great disparity” between immediate testing and RT-PCR testing.
He said RT-PCR verification kits can charge between 3,000 and 8,000 P, while immediate verification prices are 400 to 800 P.
Despite this difference in cost, Basit stated that having rapid antibody control would possibly end up being more expensive for the patient, as the effects still want to be shown with the effects of RT-PCR.
In addition, Basit stated that the effects of immediate evidence should be interpreted with caution.
Dayrit said countries will not only have to verify, but also isolate those who will be considered positive.
According to the Philippines, Dayrit believes the country deserves to increase its testing functions while targeting the right population for the test.
“Ang ibig sabihin nyan, you want to have a strategy to verify that you want them verified.” . Dun medyo nagla-lag tayo, ” said Dayrit.
(This means that there will need to be a strategy to verify that you want to verify. That’s the challenge now. We have a massive verification capability, but now the question is who should be verified to? That’s where we’re behind).)
“We were able to develop our capabilities, however, we don’t have the other people who deserve to be evaluated and you need to perform normal tests. Because you can get tested today and get inflamed tomorrow. You want a normal screening program, especially for other people at high risk,” he added.
Meanwhile, Basit echoed Dayrit’s proposal, saying that a set of country-based rules must be implemented for adjustment testing to be effective.
“In other countries, they have developed an effective set of rules for mass testing. So, let’s say, for example, that in some countries they are, they have this knowledge if local transmission is superior in that specific area, then mass testing has to be there,” Basit said.
“And then, the touch search result, the knowledge you will get from the tactile search will also be very useful for you to perform mass tests… So when it comes to mass testing, we don’t prioritize officials, we don’t prioritize other people who are not a compromised organization. Then, at the end of it all, it all comes down to the correct identity of the target population in a coherent algorithm,” he added.
The Inquirer Foundation supports our leaders in the fitness industry and still accepts donations of money to deposit in the Golden Bank Current Account (BDO) – 007960018860 or to make a donation through PayMaya at this link.
We use cookies for the most productive delight on our website. By continuing, you are satisfied with our use of cookies. For more information, click this link.