CDC's updated webpage on how COVID-19 is spread & prevention tips is now (almost) in line with science!
(WHO please do the same!)
(Hooray! only 10 months into epidemic & when Trump in hospital so maybe isn't paying attention?)
Thread cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
Webpage 1st summarizes dominant mode of transmission which is consistent with epidemiology data: mostly from people w/in 6' of each other & clearly states that people w/out symptoms (pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) can transmit also!
2. Website give ranking of how easily SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 spreads relative to flu and measles.
(I'm not sure this is supported by data. R0 is higher than flu, but might be due to length of infectious period, not higher infectiousness. Anyone know of data to support/refute?)
3. Further details on main mode of spread (w/in 6'). Still focuses on "droplets" but also describes diffusion ("spread apart") of smaller particles. Some bullets aren't especially informative or helpful, but overall, much better.
4. The big one! Direct acknowledgement that >6' "airborne" spread is possible. But wording is clear in stating that this mode is possible but rare & mostly in enclosed spaces (indoors, in vehicles) w/ poor ventilation. Great!
5. Clear, big bold text stating that surface transmission is rare. This is huge. Still so many people and places worrying about gloves & cleaning & not indoors/outdoors or ventilation.
6. A little section about spread b/w humans & animals. Doesn't indicate that spread b/w cats is possible (pnas.org/content/early/…), but I haven't seen any data that this is important epidemiologically, so probably good overall summary. But keep cats indoors (for many reasons)!
7. Prevention. I would have put this 1st!
Good: Distance & masks are 1st, 2nd
Less good: Ventilation, indoors/outdoors 4th (should be 3rd). Hand washing 3rd, & cleaning surfaces 7th.
7. cont. Additions Needed: Emphasis to get tested immediately if mild symptoms. Need this for effective contact tracing. Delays of even a few days make a huge difference as we showed in recent paper (
Overall, a great improvement. I hope individuals, schools, organizations, companies adjust their prevention and risk assessment accordingly. Ventilation/setting (indoors/outdoors) is key (but distance and/or masks still needed outdoors)!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
PSA: We (STILL) have no data to know the pattern of viral loads over time from infection to recovery. So we don't know how test sensitivity & infectiousness correlate.
Tons of stories w/ quotes from top people are not making this clear & it matters.
Clarifying thread
You may have seen this figures showing viral load over time, with thresholds for testing +.
(This one from @michaelmina_lab@DanLarremore paper). Simple & straightforward, right?
Conceptually yes, but what is this figure based on? Is it SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 data in people? Nope!
This figure is (loosely) based on data from other viruses in people & SARS-CoV-2 in animals. Here's data from macaques (10.1126/science.abc4776) & cats (pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.107…). Looks similar to schematic but not quite identical. Where is the virus-negative period pre-peak?
I posted this thread earlier because there's a serious challenge ahead: now that antigen tests are being used on a huge scale (WHO bought 120M; Abbott is producing ~50M/month), key Q is: what to do w/ result?
CDC says: + antigen test = "presumptive case". wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditio…
Understandably, this makes some health care professionals uncertain what to do next, especially if confirmatory PCR test takes days to get results back. Do they treat it like a confirmed case, try to get case to isolate & trace their contacts?
If few false +, no problem!
But if false +s are relatively common (even 1-2% would count as relatively common) & antigen tests are used for frequent screening of asymptomatic people, this would lead to large number of isolated/quarantined people, awaiting PCR tests. Here's an example...
Specificity of antigen vs PCR-tests: data needed!
Many are understandably excited about the new rapid antigen tests. But there are a couple issues I haven't seen robust data on. Maybe you can help?
What is specificity of antigen tests vs PCR?
Thread @michaelmina_lab
EUA (fda.gov/media/141570/d…) for BinaxNOW specificity (1-false +)=98.5% but:
- sample size is tiny (25 people submitting a total of 102 swabs from SYMPTOMATIC patients)
-95% CI (which should incorporate repeat testing & be analyzed as f(days since symptom onset) is: 92%-99.96%.
This means up to 8% (or more, if analysis done properly; totally unknown for asymptomatic people) of + antigen tests could be false +. If that's the case, these tests would be a disaster for screening people without reason to suspect they are infected (e.g. school kids).
Hawaii is lifting quarantine requirement if travelers take 1 test & United is now offering rapid test for flights to Hawaii.
This will miss some infected people traveling to Hawaii as I detailed earlier:
). Testing capacity has been constraint before, but less so w/ new rapid tests United is using.
Having a few more infected people reach Oahu w/out quarantine isn't a huge deal w/ current case # in 100s, but imported cases could make big difference to other islands & if Oahu could reduce cases it would matter there too. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Lots of discussion & opinions about human trials to test efficacy of vaccines. They provide key data to answer a Q that normal phase 3 trials can't:
Does the vaccine reduce infectiousness?
However, they have imp. limitations & carry risks.
Thread. theguardian.com/world/2020/sep…
), reduce probability of infection, or reduce infectiousness/transmission. WHO criteria include all 3 of these as possible endpoints for vaccine efficacy. who.int/blueprint/prio…
FDA criteria for efficacy include infection and disease (mild or severe), but nothing about infectiousness. This is problematic b/c we might think a vaccine is ineffective b/c it doesn't stop infection or reduce disease even if it reduces infectiousness enormously.
While the overall argument in thread by @j_g_allen has merit (air travel is less dangerous than article suggests), he is incorrect about incubation periods (see Fig from meta-analysis: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…). 6.7% of inc periods are >14d & 2.5% are 18+d.
Thus, none of the cases can be ruled out due to long incubation periods. All are quite plausible.
Similarly, @j_g_allen argues that being on cruise ship or hotel could have led to infection. Possibly, but need data on infection in those settings to assess. None was given.
Finally, the absence of reported cases on flights is not evidence that transmission is not occurring. Many (most?) case investigators in US don't attempt to identify detailed source of travel-related cases.