Michael Mina Profile picture
Nov 15, 2020 10 tweets 5 min read Read on X
@elonmusk Great question! It’s more complex question and depends on why the test is being used - ie: do you want to know if you are currently contagious/risky to others or if you have any remnants of RNA? The difference may sound trivial but it is massive

1/
@elonmusk If the question is "Am I currently infectious right now when the swab is collected" then on *most* instruments/labs, data suggests a Ct value somewhere around 30 or below is needed. (Different instruments/labs are different - but that's a decent generalization)...

2/
@elonmusk If the question is "Am I becoming infectious" then even if you have a high Ct value... say 38... then it's important to test again the next day. If you go to 28, then you better stay put, you're likely infectious for the next 5-8 days or so...

3/
@elonmusk If you stay at ~38 or you went from 32 to 35 or something over a 24 hour period - then most likely you are recovering from infection and no longer infectious. Some people stay positive after infection with Cts in mid-upper 30's for weeks/months.

4/
@elonmusk If want to know if one is a danger to others RIGHT NOW... a rapid antigen test can be your best friend. If positive, immediately confirm with a second *different* rapid test (antigen / lamp / isothermal) or get a PCR - but it has a long turnaround time so not as useful.

5/
@elonmusk If you just want to know the question that doctors often ask: "Do I have evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection" then look for the RNA with a PCR test or PCR-like test. In this case, a Ct value <40 is usually considered reliable on most tests for "Do I have any virus RNA in me"..

6/
@elonmusk If you actually get a result with a Ct value of 40 though... that's really REALLY low... and can be a false positive. Many labs/tests have decided to use a cutoff an order of magnitude higher.... choosing a Ct value of 37 or lower to be positive.

7/
@elonmusk Again though - PCR is tough to interpret. It does NOT = infectious. If <30... generally = contagious-ish. <20 DEFINITELY high virus

More time is in post-infectious PCR+ stage than infectious PCR+... this is where antigen test shines. If +ve and confirmed... means contagious

8/
@elonmusk Finally - different labs use different tests. @AbbottNews m2000 test for example shaves off the first 10 Ct cycles when reporting. So a 24 on m2000 = 34 cycles. Other tests may use more or less efficient enzymes. But cycle per cycle, they all do a decent job at doubling per cycle
@elonmusk @elonmusk - My quick answers to your question are above. I think you'd be interested in the detailed answer. Send me a DM if you want. You're a scientist and it would be GREAT if you could help inform the world of the right answer to your question - So much confusion abounds.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Mina

Michael Mina Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelmina_lab

Oct 3
🧵 On Seasonality:
SARS-CoV-2 has "seasonality" as a contributor to transmission dynamics

People often refute it - So I made graphs and this thread

NOTE: Seasonality does NOT = "just a cold"
Many of worst viruses have seasonality

Transmission Dynamics ≠ Pathogenicity

1/Image
Image
Image
The first figure is Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels averaged across the whole United States

See the REMARKABLE stability in the winter peak

The peak happens in the exact same week each year

Additionally, the start up the upswing to the peak (triangles) is also consistent

2/Image
A common misconception is that "Seasonality" means "no transmission out of season"

That is NOT TRUE

Seasonal forces are those that drive predictable behavior - like a winter peak in the first week of each year

3/
Read 14 tweets
Aug 18
Huge News for access to STI tests in the U.S. to help curb the growing syphilis epidemic

The @US_FDA just authorized the first fully at home OTC test for syphilis

A finger prick blood test for antibodies against the bug that causes it (T. Pallidum)

1/

nbcnews.com/health/sexual-…
For a number of decades, syphilis has been trending up in the U.S.

The cause isn’t singularly but likely is associated with relaxations of prevention of STIs in the context of more effective prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP). Plus general lack of awareness



2/publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/why-is-sy…
When left untreated, Syphilis can have devastating consequences on human health

Luckily there is very simple treatment for it (a form of Penicillin) but it only works if you take it - and you only take it if you know you have syphilis

Hence the importance of an OTC test!

3/
Read 7 tweets
May 3
Such a bad interpretation that stands to harm patient care

Let's not throw the baby out w the bathwater for COVID-19 (and flu etc)!

Suggesting to only run PCR & not rapid means most (50%-80%) of patients get WORSE care & at higher costs

Here's why:

A 🧵

1/
When I see publications & docs say “don’t use a rapid test, only use a PCR”

it assumes this is an OR only situation

Ridiculous!

A rapid test is… RAPID… and highly affordable

You lose ~nothing by it and give your patient the opportunity to GAIN tremendously

2/
If the test is positive, then for that 80%+ of culture positive ppl … your job is done immediately

You’ve spent $5 and 5 minutes and they can get on treatment right away

If you didn’t do it, it will be be 1-2 days and ~$150 before they can get started on treatment

3/
Read 10 tweets
Apr 20
Here we go again with this asinine cautious approach to testing for H5N1

CDC is NOT recommending that people with no symptoms - but who have had contact w infected animals - be tested at all… and certainly are not recommending a swab w any frequency.

Though we should have learned it in 2020, Here’s why this doesnt make sense:

1/Image
Firstly, tests are our eyes for viruses. It’s literally how we see where viruses are

If we wait until people are getting sick, we may have missed a major opportunity to find viruses jumping into humans before they learn to become so efficient in us that they cause disease

2/
So waiting until we actually have highly pathogenic strains harming humans - when we have a pretty discreet population at the moment to survey - is short sighted

3/
Read 11 tweets
Jan 16
A lot of questions still on:

How long should I isolate?

Do I need to isolate?

When can I go back to work?

Is 5 days enough?

What if I’m still positive?

Why am I not positive when I first get symptoms?

This thread below (and the embedded thread) goes through many of these questions
Now that symptoms start earlier w COVID (bc immunity activates symptoms fast after exposure)

A frequent ? that comes up is what this means for Paxlovid

Often ppl think it means you have to start Paxlovid earlier

Nope - Opposite! You have more time

2/
Bc symptoms start faster but the growth of the virus still takes about the same time as it used to…

Symptom onset today is ~2d post exposure where before it was ~5d

So, as far as virus growth is concerned, day 5 post symptoms (when the trials took place) is day ~8 today

3/
Read 6 tweets
Jan 8
A heartbreaking consequence of lapses in vaccination!

A measles outbreak is spreadinf in Philadelphia.

MEASLES! It sends kids to the hospital, erases existing immune memory (creating long term risks) and kills 1 in 1000

It was eliminated in the US, but we seem hell bent on reversing that

inquirer.com/health/measles…
A particularly deadly consequence of measles is its erasure of previously acquired immune memory - setting kids and adults up for infections that they shouldn’t be at risk from!

We found for example that measles can eliminate as much as 80% of someone’s previously acquired immunity to other pathogens!
science.org/doi/full/10.11…
Image
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(