A company has 100 employees and wants to use #SARSCoV2 antibody testing to guide their return to work.
How does that work with best available testing today?
Not very well.
by @JonathanWosen and @ms_gilchrist @sdut
sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biote…
How does that work with best available testing today?
Not very well.
by @JonathanWosen and @ms_gilchrist @sdut
sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biote…
As they point out (bottom, left), imagine that in 1000s of people. We need much better tests. This @medrxivpreprint from yesterday suggested a 99.9% specificity in >1,000 people
medrxiv.org/content/10.110… via @SeanG187 and @segal_eran
1.8% + among 4,856 people tested in Idaho
medrxiv.org/content/10.110… via @SeanG187 and @segal_eran
1.8% + among 4,856 people tested in Idaho
See @Liv_Boeree's point below. She is correct about their false negative assertion. To be clear, the main problem with serology tests is their false positive rate, providing the person a false sense of "immunity"
The image has been corrected by the @sdut authors for the 100 employee antibody testing hypothetical. The message that we need better Ab tests (less false positives) remains the same and such tests are likely to be available soon.
