From a game theory angle, replacing lab tests with home tests is a classic adverse selection problem. When people self-select when to test, they test when symptoms are loudest or when they want a specific answer. That biases the sample set — false negatives and positives get smoothed over, and the results lose statistical meaning. Lab testing is the standardized equilibrium: everyone plays by the same rules, so the data is reliable for doctors and public health. Home tests may be convenient, but they can't replace that. They should complement, not substitute.

I get the appeal of home tests for empowering patients and catching things early. But replacing lab tests is essentially a prisoner's dilemma: the rational move for each patient is convenience, yet when everyone self-tests and self-reports, the shared data doctors depend on loses accuracy. We end up at a worse equilibrium where results are interpreted without clinical history or standardized controls. Labs give us a trusted baseline that makes follow-up decisions meaningful. Home tests are great as a complement, but as a replacement they quietly shift risk from the system onto the individual. That trade-off isn't worth it.