Canada has been reluctant to embrace rapid tests. This Harvard epidemiologist says we can’t afford to wait | The Star https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/12/06/canada-has-been-reluctant-to-embrace-rapid-tests-this-harvard-epidemiologist-says-we-cant-afford-to-wait.html

We should not think of Ag tests as “diagnostic tests”. PCR-based tests are for diagnosis. Ag tests are in addition to daily screening.

Every day before work or school we screen for symptoms and exposures. How reliable is this?

Since 50% of transmissions occur in the absence of symptoms, screening has very high false negative and false positive rates. Ag tests can greatly improve screening accuracy thereby detecting way more infectious people.

There is a risk of false negatives but the test can be frequently repeated (daily or multiple times a week). As mentioned above way less false negatives than symptom screening.

There is a risk of false positives. But these are NOT diagnostic tests. Anyone with a positive Ag test or symptoms needs a diagnostic PCR test. Again would detect way more truly infectious people than symptoms screening alone.

Do seatbelts increase reckless driving?

Does having a negative HIV test increase high risk sexual behaviours?

These were real arguments made that have been proven incorrect. The same arguments are being made for rapid Ag tests.

We need less resistance to these tools and more clear communication on their utility and limitations so they are used in the appropriate context. There are potentially huge public health implications at stake