“Last week we reached an important milestone in which, @WHO issued the first Emergency Use Listing for a quality antigen based rapid diagnostic test, and we expect other rapid tests to follow. ”, says @DrTedros at #covid19 presser.
@WHO@DrTedros Good news: 120 million of these tests will be made available to low- and middle-income countries, to "enable the expansion of testing, particularly in hard to reach areas that do not have lab facilities or enough trained health workers to carry out PCR tests”, says @DrTedros.
@WHO@DrTedros These tests are cheaper ("priced at a maximum of 5 US dollars per unit”) and faster (15-30 minutes) than PCR, says @DrTedros. "The quicker #COVID19 can be diagnosed, the quicker action can be taken to treat and isolate those with a virus and trace their contacts."
@WHO@DrTedros (Side note: @DrTedros also gave a shout-out to @c_drosten’s lab in his opening remarks. "Working with our partner lab in Germany, Charité University, we published the first instructions on how to build a validated #COVID19 PCR test.")
@WHO@DrTedros@c_drosten “This is a big step towards more equitable allocation of diagnostics”, says @PeterASands. "Right now, high income countries are conducting 292 tests per day, per 100,000 people”
upper middle-income countries: 77
lower middle-income countries: 61
low-income countries: 14
@WHO@DrTedros@c_drosten@PeterASands "They're not a silver bullet”, says @PeterASands of rapid diagnostic tests, "but hugely valuable as a complement to PCR tests, since although they're a bit less accurate, they're much faster, cheaper, and don't require a lab."
@WHO@DrTedros@c_drosten@PeterASands Just over 50 million tests conducted in Africa, says @JNkengasong. “not because the continent doesn't know how to test. It's essentially because the current tools that we have, do not enable us to fulfil those four criteria that is easy to use, affordable, scalable and reliable."
@WHO@DrTedros@c_drosten@PeterASands@JNkengasong Volume guarantee agreements have been signed between Gates Foundation and two rapid diagnostic test producers (Abbott and SD Biosensors) "to make 120 million tests available at $5 dollars for low, middle income countries over a period of six months”, says @BoehmeCatharina.
@WHO@DrTedros@c_drosten@PeterASands@JNkengasong@BoehmeCatharina Three areas in particular where rapid tests will be helpful, says @mvankerkhove: 1. "respond to suspected outbreaks in remote settings or institutions or semi-closed communities where we don't have access to PCR” 2. speedy cluster investigations 3. monitor high-risk populations
So what have I learnt about #misinformation research? I tried to condense it into a list of the 5 biggest challenges the field faces.
Second story in my package of stories about misinformation research is up here (and thread to come):
Let me start with the first:
What even is misinformation?
When I started reporting on the field, eager to delve into things I was really frustrated that I kept coming back to this basic question. I told friends it felt like trying to take a deep dive in a puddle, always forced back to the surface.
In retrospect, it seems obvious that this was going to be a thorny problem that I would have to spend a lot of time on. The definition you use really defines the shape of the problem and it also kinda helps to be sure you're talking about the same thing as your interview partner...
I’ve reported on infectious diseases for 15 years, but during the covid-19 pandemic and even more during the global outbreak of mpox clade IIb, I was shocked by the amount of misinformation I was seeing. Misinfo had always been part of any outbreak, but this felt different.
I ended up spending almost a year at MIT as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow (@KSJatMIT) to try and understand misinformation/disinformation better, to - I hope - be a better infectious disease journalist.
It’s been an interesting experience in turns fascinating and frustrating and when I went back to full-time science writing earlier this year I decided to try and put at least some of what I’ve learnt into words.
I'm seeing a lot of confusion already out there about #mpox and the differences between clades and lineages. I will get into this in more detail later, but for now:
We really don't know for sure whether there is any material difference between clade Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb.
The differences we see might have very little to do with the virus and everything to do with it affecting different populations in different places and spreading different ways once it gets into certain contact networks. Real world data is not comparing apples and apples here...
We will learn a lot in the coming weeks and months and things will become much clearer. But for now there is a lot of uncertainty. My advice as always: Don’t trust anyone who pretends that things are clear and obvious.
In May I wrote about researchers' plans to infect cows in high-security labs with avian influenza #H5N1 to better understand the infections and how easily the virus is transmitted. The results from two of these experiments are now out here in a preprint: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
WHAT DID THEY DO?
In one experiment (at Kansas State University) 6 calves were infected with an #H5N1 isolate from the current outbreak oronasally and then housed together with three uninfected animals ("sentinels") two days later.
In the other experiment (at Friedrich Loeffler Institut) 3 lactating cows were infected through the udder with an #H5N1 isolate from the US outbreak and 3 other lactating cows the same way with a different #H5N1 isolate from a wild bird in Europe.
One question at the heart of the #h5n1 outbreak in US cows has been: Is there something special about this virus? Or is H5N1 generally able to do this and this particular version was just "in the right place at the right time"?
Quick thread, because it seems we have an answer
Researchers in Germany have done an experiment in a high-security lab infecting cows directly with the strain of #H5N1 circulating in cows in the US (B3.13) and infecting others with an #h5n1 strain from a wild bird in Germany.
(I wrote about the plans here: )science.org/content/articl…
In both cases they infected the udders directly through the teats and in both cases the animals got sick. They "showed clear signs of disease such as a sharp drop in milk production, changes in milk consistency and fever." That suggests there is nothing special about B3.13.
The thing that I find most frustrating about the entire mpox/gain-of-function debate is how the uncertainties that lie at the base of it all just become cemented as certainties that are then carried forward.
(If you know anything about me you know I love me some uncertainty...)
Most importantly: The interim report on the investigation into these experiments released on Tuesday numerous times calls clade II "more transmissible" or even "much more transmissible".
But that is a claim that has very little evidence at all.
In fact you can find plenty of literature that argue the exact opposite, that in fact clade I is more transmissible.
Just, as an example, here is Texas HHS:
"Clade I MPXV, which may be more transmissible and cause more severe infection than Clade II..." dshs.texas.gov/news-alerts/he…