Its probably 99% accurate for test positive if you're positive.Its accuracy is based on if someone got a viable sample. the thing I'd be worried about is human error whether done unintentional or maliciously. nikkas barely read instructions to anything as it is now. Thats where we base why we have presumptive negatives if you did it right, and false negatives if
.
With an instrument that has everything on it, quality controlled, calibrated, and maintenance done on a daily basis by a professional the amount of human error is next to none.
O yea blood and serum samples are better than saliva samples IMO with rapid tests....and I'm glad people out here doing their on research too.