Max 3 per person, when you add 3 to the cart, dicsount will automatically applied and the price becomes $60 with free shipping
Posting for people who don't have time lining up for the test..
General Information
RightSign COVID 19 Antigen Tests Nasal Swab Self Tests may be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). For in-vitro screening only.
RATs have no role to play at a consumer level.
Unless you are symptomatic?
Ah poops. I took the RAT earlier today and then decided to go visit my folks.
It's okay. That wasn't a harmful thing.
We just need to steer away from any false confidence by taking a RAT and be informed about your transmissibility risk.
So what's the solution?
Take a PCR test and wait how long for the Results?
Didn't the Government tell people to stop taking PCR tests unless they have symptoms?
I would prefer a 60% chance of it telling me I had COVID than just taking a 0% chance.
@Other: Agreed, surgical masks also stop infection 70% and vaccination like 50%. Combining the rapid antigen test with masks, face shield, vaccination and social distancing gives good protection.
The fastest you can get PCR is about 24 hours, so you still may as well just do rapid antigen test since you can have negative PCR then the next day positive.
@Savas: The efficacy has been in 80-90s % since the vaccines have been rolled out? They believe a reduction via omicron but a significant jump up back to the original vaccine efficacy pre omicron strain on a booster dose though. Certainly 50% is far too low a number than what the actual studies seem to be disclosing.
@SaberX: Doesn't wearing a mask reduce your risk of exposure by 53%?
Good idea when you can't social distance, even if it's not mandatory.
Yes. Just like how breast cancer is a safe cancer
You do realise it’s case numbers not deaths that are reported?
@grasstown: Looks like 33 negative votes against your previous comment shows you might be the one who is not in the know.
@Misasagi: grasstown sounds like someone who would say "you can wear the mask if you're worried, I won't"
Hmm, guess he could be a PM or nsw premier one day
@grasstown: Our PM and NSW premier are the two biggest idiot leaders that have ever graced this great nation.
@grasstown: You'd have to be on the grass to listen to idiots like the PM or NSW Premier.
Maybe being delusional is a requirement in grasstown. What do you say, grassy?
Fairly safe for me if the breasts aren't my own.
I didn't know breast cancer has basically no symptoms, only kills 0.1% of the people who get it, and gives you super immunity from all other cancers?
It is people like u that caused all the lockdowns.
Also, it is a covid test, not an omicron test.
I love seeing covidiots in action. They're a special kind of stupid.
I'm with you here, regardless of the negative votes.
I'm also double-vaxxed and waiting for my booster.
Well your concluding sentence doesn’t really work when the government now require you to get a RAT to leave isolation if a close contact. Thus, I would say they have a very large role to play at consumer level.
Their effectiveness is another discussion altogether.
Your regional public health service, via testing sites, will be supplying RATs (without charge) to meet these guidelines.
The policy change relates to relieving demand on testing sites and pathology services for running RT-PCRs. If governments could preserve RT-PCR testing in the current format, they would, but unfortunately they need to be more pragmatic (at the cost of testing sensitivity and the absolute integrity of isolating procedures).
As for asymptomatic individuals seeking to screen, RATs are not helpful.
With supply and gouging issues flagged recently, it's probably best not to engage this consumer market (if the cost isn't disincentive enough).
I still think it’s easier to buy then having to go visit a testing centre to get a RAT. There will still be delays, assuming they have supplies.
But yes, you don’t need to buy them. But all in all, these do have a role to play for people.
@michaelb94: If you require a RAT for isolating purposes, you will be attending a testing centre at least in the initial phase of your isolation for RT-PCRs. RATs can be supplied then rather than returning later when the RAT is due.
The Commonwealth is securing supply of RATs. But at the moment they have been messaging to retailers to stop the instances of price gouging, and reducing consumer demand will assist this.
the UK advise rapid tests for exactly that - asymptomatic people who are about to visit people at high risk of severe illness so how can it be that they are not helpful?
seems like australia is just behind the curve here as usual…isolation rules, reduce timeframe for booster shots - we just copy it from overseas eventually.
@j24bauer: In an endemic, government supply of RATs can partially identify and isolate some of the population and achieve some reductions in exposure.
As far as screening is concerned, RATs only start to make sense when you are testing large cohorts, say a high-risk workplace. If you can reduce the asymptomatic carriers in that type of setting by ~50%, you are significantly reducing potential exposure.
For the individual seeking to screen for social reasons, they aren't providing the answer you seek.
Except they aren't currently.
So in the current situation, they do fulfil a purpose for consumers.
Further, there is no actual need to get a PCR test unless it is required for e.g. employment, travel or specific health purposes, in the new current circumstances. Thus, if you are symptomatic and want confirmation in the current environment, getting a RAT as a consumer gives you that confirmation as much as getting a PCR.
so.. 40 to 60% less chance of giving it to Grandma.. seems ok to me.
That interpretation of testing sensitivity would presume that not taking a RAT when asymptomatic (and not knowing your SARS-Cov-2 status) would result in a 100% chance of infecting Grandma…
Yeah, it's 0% vs apparently 50-60%. But because comprehensive research is yet to be completed, people are just throwing around educated guesses.
The FDA in the USA, has said "Early data (but not conclusive) suggest that antigen tests do detect the omicron variant but may have reduced sensitivity. "
But with other variants, RAT's several days apart have show to be very accurate.
Since NSW has basically decided Australia is going to "let it rip" & wash through the country, testing isn't really a big deal now for most. Certain environments like aged care, hospitals, etc it is.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi…
I know ozbargain is very left leaning, so it's common for the majority on here to want to deflect any and all blame for the virus onto the right wing governments in this country (even though Victoria, a very left wing government, had statistically, the worst performance of any Australian government throughout the whole pandemic).
However, what is it exactly you want at this point other than "letting it rip"?
At first it was "2 weeks to slow the spread", then it was "we are going to persue a covid zero strategy, so any significant cases are going to result in lockdowns", then it was we can get back to "normal" once a vaccine is developed, then it was we can get back to "covid normal" once 80% are vaccinated… We are currently between 85 - 90+% vaccinated and people who swore they weren't just scared of the virus, they were being very reasonable, want to change the goalposts again and want near 100%? + Boosted?…
Even though the WHO is saying selfish people in wealthy countries are just prolonging the pandemic by hogging all the boosters that should be going to countries that can't afford them so have just turned into breeding grounds for the next, potentially vaccine resistant, variant.
Plenty of evidence to suggest that RATs accuracy is much better when it counts most, when you are indeed infectious. "The more sensitive RATs are able to detect the vast majority of contagious individuals" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02197-z. Therefore taking one just before a higher risk setting such as seeing an at risk individual, does indeed provide value.
I'll save the article and give it a full read later, thanks.
I perused the discussion to understand the research aims.
It looks like this study is addressing the exit testing for isolated individuals and the issue with high sensitivity RT-PCR detecting relatively low viral load at the tail-end of an infectious period when the transmissibility risk is low but individuals are having isolation periods extended. It looks like the aim is to assess whether lower sensitivity (antigen) testing with RATs can differentiate between lower and higher viral loads (lower or higher transmissibility risk) for those coming out of isolation, therefore allowing low risk individuals to exit.
So it looks like this research is trying to assist with isolation protocol, by taking advantage of the inherently lower sensitivity of RATs.
They also caution:
Significant variability was observed in the detection limit of different RATs…
…explains the previously observed variability between individual RAT evaluations and is in concordance with the WHO’s warning…
The least accurate RATs can fail in unmasking a significant proportion of contagious patients
Two more studies reported also that RATs are less effective in asymptomatic subjects than in symptomatic individuals
Either way, the issue is screening, not diagnosis of the symptomatic. With the low sensitivity of RATs for asymptomatic patients, there's no denying they are poor at detecting carriers.
The critical point is that the sensitivity of RATs is correlated with viral load and infectiousness, a false negative RAT is most likely to occur for people that are least infectious. In some ways, that's actually the most relevant metric for reducing transmission. So while it's true that there's "no denying they are poor at detecting carriers" the missing link is that such carriers (asymptomatic and negative RAT) present a relatively low risk of onwards transmission. So I think you're a bit too pessimistic about the value of RATs, it's also true that they're most sensitive in the situations that matter the most
Man in comments seemingly knows more than the medical establishment and TGA.
I'll stick with the actual experts thanks
There are many medical experts on ozb.
Ozbargain has all the experts!
@Melencir: They were going cheap in a 70% of sale. I bought 3 and I don't even have a use for one. That's ozbargain for you.
Your comments are definitely less informed than his/hers. At least i learnt something from muwu and papagoose. Whereas from you.. I just learnt to ignore you.
But in case you didn't read properly: be aware there's a difference between policy, which has to consider practical constraints, and perfect medical scenario idealisation. The fact RATs are even a thing is pretty much due to practical limitations of PCR.
RATs are a 'thing' to provide a cheaper, quicker, and more convenient alternative than PCRs.
the medical establishment and TGA
Medical professionals are discussing the depth of analyses that apply to various COVID subjects, such as RATs, and attempting to communicate in as simple and effective a means of communication as possible to the general public to educate the important points.
The nuance of subjects are often not achieved. So most aim for broader points.
Accepting one source and dismissing another is not a helpful methodology. It's better to understand the argument presented by one source, then compare and contrast with information from other sources.
It's the basis of the scientific method.
Reading a news article is helpful. Reading several on the same subject is better. Following up with individual research is better yet. And reading some research material is great.
Believe it or not I have a (useless) degree in the philosophy of the scientific method.
What I can quite simply tell you is that listening to random experts on the internet is not a replacement for the technocracy.
As for your comment on "doing individual research" I think you might as well have written "iNDIviDUaL ReSeaRCh", because this is the language of anti-vaxxers and covid-deniers.
@Niko123456: I've lost the rationale of your argument.
I'll leave the thread with this reiteration, and a hope that it may encourage any reader to engage in critical means of analysis:
Accepting one source and dismissing another is not a helpful methodology. It's better to understand the argument presented by one source, then compare and contrast with information from other sources.
why should you get a pcr test if the rapid test is positive?
seems like a waste of 5 hours + 3-4 day waiting time…probably recovered by then.
For many reasons but mostly legal, health and safety issues. If u r positive and you can't work, your work will ask for pcr result confirmation, not rapid test result.
i guess so but i work from home and have plenty of sick leave….i figure if i got really sick i will just rock up to the emergency department.
@j24bauer: In many cases such as this you do not need a PCR.
PCRs were the original version of testing when RATs weren't available so they were required then. Unfortunately people have retained the previous assumptions that they are required because that's the way things were. However, now that RATs are approved and in use, the process like many other areas is changing. But 'old habits die hard.'
For example, if you get a PCR now and it tests positive, all that you get (in most cases) is a text message with instructions with what to do next. No follow up. No other interaction. And aside from being added to the stats count for the day, no other significant impact on any other metrics or records. The Covid response and treatment remains the same as if you get a RAT and test positive. Unless as mentioned, there is a specific need for the PCR results such as occupation, travel or specific health needs.
That question touches on specificity.
This discussion thread is trying to educate on sensitivity, so maybe we mightn't touch on specificity right now.
Easy to say, you must be getting that molecular confirmation (RT-PCR) if the antigen test is positive and "suggestive" of an infective status.
This discussion thread peddles dangerous partial information. You treat all RATs in one bucket - regardless of known varying sensitivity and LLoD.
Population level impact does matter for a population level exponential event - imperfection at an individual level is of only minor interest. It certainly is not a reason to skip the RAT.
You also fail to distinguish between a carrier of rna-virus vs those likely to transmit.
Anyway - lots of dangerous stupid on the Internet dressed up as "I've read the research". It's not like this thread is the only one!
Woah woah woah - your numbers aren't wrong but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. RATs are indeed imperfect which is why Australia has largely ignored them until now.
However - we're in a new phase of the virus where's it's extremely prevalent and yet because we're all vaccinated life should hopefully continue on as normal. In this context measures that reduce transmission but cause minimal disruption, like wearing good masks indoors, better ventilation, and absolutely RATs, are essential. Especially if you're symptomatic, they're definitely better than nothing.
What is absolutely missing - is any sort of bloody guidance from the government about when and how RATs should be utilised.
100% agree.
RATs have their place. Apply them at a population level and you can contribute to detection and isolation of a significant proportion of carriers - let's say ~50% or maybe 60%, if it matches the researched sensitivity for asymptomatic subjects.
That helps.
At an individual level when someone is deciding on social activities, RATs aren't providing the answer to the question you're asking.
Looks like government policy on RATs is evolving. Would be nice if it was more advanced at this time as we enter the endemic stage achieved by Omicron. But there's been lots of progress recently.
Hey @muwu are there any particular medical journals that you're sourcing from? curious to read up more on this
I don't save my readings. I have research articles flagged to me from time to time (~weekly) in the course of my work, which I study, otherwise I follow developments like everyone else.
It's all about the pretest probability. If you are a close contact and symptomatic your pretest probability is very different to asymptomatic screening. It's difficult for the lay person to know when to use the RATs
If you are a close contact and symptomatic your pretest probability is very different to asymptomatic screening. It's difficult for the lay person to know when to use the RATs
Spot on.
There's a need for education about RATs.
I can back this up. I tested negative TWICE on RAT. I took one 1 hour before and another 1 hour after my PCR test. I was symptomatic. I was positive on PCR.
They're not very good - however, I don't think they do false positives often so if it's positive you very well likely have it. Just don't rely on them to tell you you're negative.
PCR tests can give false positives
I never said they don't but the false positive rate is well below the false negative rate.
Talk to your GP about anxiety and OCD. RAT is a great test for everyone. Trust science.
Science has it that Rat gives a high false negative rate. It's established.
Sources?
Bibliography?
The UK government allow you to order these fre if charge
https://www.gov.uk/order-coronavirus-rapid-lateral-flow-test…
The incompetent and inept Liberal Party PM has failed on this too.
Do they ship to aus?
I infected my 87 year old grandmother 3 weeks ago because I trusted my negative RAT a bit too much…
So sorry is she OK.
Got out of hospital 3 days ago. Recovering well 🙂 certainly scary
If you're a household of 3 (assuming that if one gets COVID, all would get it due to lack of distancing and masks at home), would it increase the chance of identifying positive cases to a more acceptable figure? I can't remember how to correctly calculate the probabilities but assuming 60% success in identifying asymptomatic cases, is it 1-((1-0.6)(1-0.6)(1-0.6))=93.6%?
I've thought about this.
That is one way of multiplying probabilities.
I think the difference here is that there are practical testing limitations that apply to RATs that keep their sensitivity probabilities low regardless of how often you test.
For example, the probability of detection in asymptomatic carriers can be low because (i) there is a low viral load so too little antigen for the RAT to detect, (ii) reduced sample collected because of the nature of self-swabbing by non-professional, and (iii) the lower sensitivity of the RAT as an antigen test rather than a molecular test like RT-PCR.
So retesting won't increase detection as a multiple of its probability, because these reasons for low detection persists between tests and are likely to return further negative results. Retesting may product slightly higher sensitivities than ~40-60%, but not substantially (certainly not >80%).
If you are a asymptomatic you are less likely of spreading COVID in the first place, so they are still useful to check for screening purposes. Giving the symptomatic people an easy way to be sure they have COVID and would likely spread it is still useful.
I'm not sure your numbers stack up against recent studies, but taking a RAT for surveillance before going to see your grandparents etc. at a 40-60% success rate (if that is even still true) is far better than not taking one and having a 0% chance. If you take more regularly (like one each day you might go out to a social gathering, so like 3 or 4 days a week, your chance of detecting something is greater.
Buy a pack of 20 test from Costco for $150 when that deal comes around again (the Costco ones are actually pretty good). Test regularly, and don't just throw your arms up in the air and give up because someone tells you that 1 RAT test in isolation is "a coinflip" for asymptomatic carriers.
Are these any better than Lyher $48 for 5pk at Healthylife which are a bit cheaper? Free delivery also.
Edit: Cashback is 12 or 13% at the moment too.
Healthylife ones are very high sensitivity compared to this one (high sensitivity)
Apparently LYHER are meant to be greater than 95% sensitivity….versus the RightSign or Hough at greater than 90%
https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-rapid-antigen-self-tests-are…
Earliest they can ship is Jan 9
Don't bother signing up for the pop-up $10 off promo for these. RATs are excluded.
Legend
Got some when they had 20% off… So 7 pack cost me $48…but considering you can get some still from healthy life it's still a little cheaper than this deal..
Looks like they're realised how sought after these are - I paid $48 for 7 tests about 2 weeks ago. Same price for 5 tests now!
Cheers, grabbed one!
To all those thinking this is accurate I would be cautious.
I work in health care industry and I had an RN do two tests while they were sick. Came back negative. 3rd time it was semi positive. 4th test was at a proper testing facility and it came back positive..
There is also many environmental conditions that could affect the testing.
So please don't take these tests as a final clearance you don't have COVID.
But in saying that NSW health isn't any better bungling all those positive cases as negative.
Anecdotally, I've been hearing a lot of false negatives from PCR's as well (heard from about 10 people, not like the entire population). They all have RAT tests done, and positive, and exhibiting quite clear symptoms, but one is positive, while other is negative PCR, even though they live together. Seems rather odd. Wondering if this influx of PCR testing has strained their system and caused mistakes to be made, like the 4000 cases that were sent incorrect negative results.
3rd time it was semi positive.
What does that even mean? It is either positive, negative or invalid.
The redline was faint and not full red.
Hence my point that these things arent reliable and could have been a faulty kit
The redline was faint and not full red
That is a positive result.
Hence my point that these things arent reliable and could have been a faulty kit
But it returned a positive test that turned out to be confirmed.
Just in case there are a few people who haven't read up on the utility of rapid antigen tests (RATs):
When you read the sensitivity numbers - that is, the likelihood of the test faithfully returning a positive result if you do indeed have SARS-Cov-2 - you will see percentages somewhere above 80%, with the highest sensitivity ones >95%.
This high percentage applies to people who are both (i) symptomatic, and (ii) testing during the most acute phase of their illness (typically the first 5 days of symptoms).
When studies have looked at using RATs on asymptomatic subjects, the sensitivity numbers are closer to the ballpark of ~40-60%.
That is if you do have SARS-CoV-2 and are carrying it without any symptoms, there is about a flip-of-the-coin chance that you'll detect it using a RAT.
Preliminarily, it is thought that this asymptomatic sensitivity is likely to be even poorer with the Omicron variant.
That makes a RAT of very little use for screening purposes. You know, the classic line of "I'm visiting the grandparents and want to be sure," - this does not provide that reassurance.
As far as screening is concerned, RATs only start to make sense when you are testing large cohorts, say a high-risk workplace. If you can reduce the asymptomatic carriers in that type of setting by ~50%, you are significantly reducing potential exposure.
At an individual level, RATs are only useful for providing a fairly high indication of whether or not you have SARS-CoV-2 if you have developed symptoms. In which case, you need to be getting a formal RT-PCR test and isolating anyway.
Conclusion: RATs have no role to play at a consumer level. They may have an ancillary role to play in large populations when implemented by a government or corporate body.