Rapd vs PCR tests

New Straits Times: Japan to let in long-stay travellers.

https://www.nst.com.my/world/region/2020/09/627201/japan-let-long-stay-travellers

I am surprised at the poor response to opening a country and deployment of testings. Ignoring rapid testing could be a sign of the arrogsnce of a rich and advanced nation, because Vietnam has used rapid testing successfully.

I have explained the issues involved but Malaysia is too stupid to consider. Malaysian doctors need to follow WHO directives that are even more stupid. Thousands of experts have pointed out WHO mistakes on many issues including the masks, and even hundreds had written official letters, and yet, I do not see any change in the opinion of WHO. Luckily Malaysia has decided to disobey the directive because of pressures from the public.

WHO and others are not naturally stupid because we all have the same brain. The differences are due to attitudes only. 1 is honesty, or not engaging in lies, which is an offshoot of fitnah also. 2 is bravery, to fight for the truth, or in Islam, not Dayus.

What is wrong with the Japanese approach? PCR tests take time. If overloaded, can take 3 days. Rapid tests can be done in 30 minutes and much cheaper but it is not sensitive. Many doctors consider less sensitive tests as not accurate but this is nonsense. Any equipment is designef for a certain level of samples. None can test without any sample at all, no matter how accurate it is. PCR may be accurate but it still needs some samples, but very small amount.

What is the purpose of testing? Is it to prevent infection completely? The moment you test, no more infection. Of course not.

The purpose of testing is to ensure that a person will not be able to infect others, but unfortunately, even the most sensitive test, will still allow the person to infect others. It is a question of when.

Using PCR, if the person was already exposed, the amount of virus that cannot be detected by the virus, will grow rapidly, that by 24hours, another PCR test should guarantee that the person was negative, but cannot guarantee that within the 24hours he was not infected.

But we can the same with rapid tests. The only difference is the duration of the subsequent tests. The person can be negative at first, but at the next hour, he will be positive as the virus grows rapidly. Does it mean rapid tests are useless.

The real purpose of tests is to ensure a person is not infective. The levels of virus that cannot be detected by rapid tests are known to be not infective. If not, then rapid tests cannot be used for this purpose, but can be used for monitoring purposes only.

So the next test should be when? Football clubs used to consider testing players frequently, but was abandoned.

At entrance, rapid tests can be used. PCr can also be used, so with the rapid tests, travellers who are negative can move freely while waiting for the PCR results. The next day, another test need to be conducted, to ensure that the visitor is really free of any virus. If the test turned out positive, there is no danger because the low virus level should not be infective. This needs to be monitored for evidences that people can still be infective despite the low levels of virus undetectable by the  PCR tests.

But PCR tests are expensive. Better use rapid tests. If necessary, conduct rapid tests for visitors wanting to enter enclosed spaces, with the understanding that the rapid tests can ensure a few hours of non-infectivity.

Not all visitors want to go to enclosed spaces. Hotels where visitors stay and eat should be isolated within 14 days, by sanitising and antiviral ionisers. In Japan, even budget hotels have Plasmaclusters.

Only this way we can tour safely. I also want to visit Japan safely.