Notice Concerning Negative Test Disbelief
The test was negative. The subject is now researching whether the test could have been wrong.
Hearing Transcript: Negative Test Disbelief Inquiry Proceedings, May 2021. Abridged.
PRESIDING OFFICER: State the matter before us.
PETITIONER: The petitioner received a negative rapid antigen test result this morning at 9:52 AM. The test was administered correctly. The instructions were followed. The result appeared within the specified window.
PRESIDING OFFICER: And the petitioner's position?
PETITIONER: The petitioner is not satisfied with the result.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Please clarify. The result was negative. This is the preferred outcome.
PETITIONER: The result was negative. The petitioner had a scratchy throat on Thursday. The scratchy throat resolved by Friday afternoon. The test was taken as a precaution on Saturday. The petitioner received a negative result.
PRESIDING OFFICER: And?
PETITIONER: The petitioner subsequently searched for information on the false negative rate of rapid antigen tests, with particular attention to early-stage infections and the reliability of self-administered tests versus laboratory-administered tests, and whether a resolved symptom would produce a lower viral load that might fall below the test's detection threshold.
PRESIDING OFFICER: What did this search find?
PETITIONER: The search found that rapid antigen tests have a false negative rate of between fifteen and forty percent depending on the study, the variant, the stage of infection, and the specific test kit in use.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Is the petitioner's kit among those studied?
PETITIONER: The petitioner was unable to confirm this.
PRESIDING OFFICER: What does the petitioner propose?
PETITIONER: The petitioner is considering a PCR test, which has a lower false negative rate, to confirm the negative result.
PRESIDING OFFICER: The panel notes that the PCR test appointment is not available until Tuesday.
PETITIONER: The petitioner is aware.
PRESIDING OFFICER: The panel further notes that the petitioner's symptom resolved two days ago.
PETITIONER: The petitioner remains aware.
FINDING
A negative result requires more investigation than a positive result because it contradicts the anxiety that motivated the test. The test is supposed to produce certainty, yet the certainty produced is immediately subjected to quality review.
The petitioner took a test to remove doubt. The test removed the most probable source of doubt. The doubt has reorganized around the test's reliability.
The scratchy throat is noted. It was probably a dry room. May is a dry month. The air conditioning was running.
ON THE QUESTION OF THE PCR TEST
The panel does not advise against the PCR test if the petitioner requires it for travel, work, or a specific social obligation where a negative rapid result is insufficient. For personal certainty purposes, the panel observes that the certainty sought has not been defined, and that a test result confirming a negative result will likely prompt a question about whether the second test is also potentially subject to false negatives.
HEARING ADJOURNED
Postscript: The petitioner did not book the PCR test. The scratchy throat did not return. The petitioner attended the dinner on Sunday and mentioned the negative rapid result twice.