Hacker News Reader

The article mentions RNA implying that this is the PCR test not an Antibody test. False positives exist with the PCR test. Information I could find suggests the primary cause is sample contamination. So running the test multiple times through different labs and clinicians is an obvious workaround.

View on HN

Surely this is not a false-positive, but rather a false-negative?

That is, the patients were observed clinically to have caught and recovered from the virus, yet the test shows no trace of the viral infection.

> Surely this is not a false-positive, but rather a false-negative?

Both are possible and either mess it all up.

This is the correct answer

More likely sample degradation as well. Rna is notorious for being extremely fragile exactly when you need it not to be and extremely robust when you don't. Academic rna labs have a reputation for being clean freaks, and there was a spate of spurious observations when rt(rt)pcr became a thing ten or so years ago... I'm still not convinced of rt/rt results performed by run of the mill labs, generally speaking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com