I am a relatively new user on iNat, and a new user on the Forum - this being my first post.
I like to contribute by adding annotations and tags wherever I can. In this quest, I have come across multiple observations that have photos of test kits as observations.
I feel that there are a few issues with these types of observations which give rise to natural questions.
These rapid antigen tests are not deterministically accurate. (Specificity/Sensitivity varies and is typically in the ~80-95% range)
The tests only turn positive after a certain period of time in incubation/infection has elapsed. Until then these tests will report negative. Can these observations then be appended with the previously administered failed kits photos as evidence of the organism post-facto? This can be confusing to interpret.
If I accept this kit as evidence, should I also accept a test report from a clinic/diagnostics lab in an observation? If yes, then for what kinds of life? Can a pregnancy kit be observed?
How do we define the evidence of the organism specimen here?
What is the net benefit in the community knowledge of this taxon? Such observation do not illustrate morphology or any identifiable structures or symptoms. Perhaps in the way of epidemiology, such observations may be useful.
All of these questions become irrelevant, if these observations are considered casual. Are there any implications arising from a “Research Grade” observation of this type?
I would like to understand other perspectives from members.
This is a great question. I have little to no experience with this kind of thing, and so have little opinion. There is a whole debate wether a virus is even a form of life. All I can say is, if I tested positive for SARS CoV-2, I would make an observation.
I don’t really see an issue with this kind of observation, I don’t think it’s fundamentally different from a photo of an animal track. Yeah it probably isn’t that useful but I don’t think it’s really a problem
Photos attached to iNat observations should be evidence of the organism, I think a test is evdience. It’s up to each person identifying it if they believe the evidence is sufficient or not.
Some people wanted to document their encounter with a disease so they added these. There are like 379 observations of SARS-CoV-2 on iNat, out of more than 209 million observations. I doubt anyone would be using these for research, there are many other ways to gather more robust epidemiological data. I’d recommend just letting these be and moving on.
I understand. Perhaps, I would too - not sure in which form.
That is true, I came across multiple such observations through a Human hosts project. The examples I cited were just recent and at the top, and coincidentally for CoV type.
I intended my post to be, therefore, general - reflected in the title and pt. 3 in my post.