The reason for the test was exposure to a suggestive but non-specific symptom in a member of the household who was also tested 2/n
While waiting for the test result, all members of the household quarantined. Child did not go to school. Prevented any risk of transmission outside the household 3/n
We also wore masks while together, and the symptomatic person slept separately. Common spaces were ventilated - it made the house cold, but that's what warm clothes are for. 4/n
Waiting for the test was a pain, but the result came in relatively quickly. The caveat to this is that as that time increases, the window where you can make any difference to onward transmission narrows 5/n
This afternoon I overheard a parent state that they were planning to get tested weekly. That sounds great, but that sort of approach will flood the system such that people with actual known exposures don't get their results quickly enough to make a difference 6/n
(an anxious worker in a grocery store who wants testing after hearing of symptoms among their colleagues, is not the same as Tarquin's Mum who wants to feel more relaxed after a week of minimal exposures) 7/n
There is a tension here; we want more testing but the people who present for testing may not be those most at risk. We need to ensure equitable access (and response) 8/n
Cases are skyrocketing. Demand for testing is also skyrocketing. I would respectfully suggest that if you have no reason to think you were exposed you might want to hold back and just minimize your contacts 9/n
Negative tests can also lead to a false sense of security. Remember testing negative in the past is not a guarantee for the future. Consider the White House outbreak 10/n
Tests building up in the system can slow the results for the most important tests connected to contact tracing. Once you get beyond a day or so such tests are useless for slowing transmission - the virus has smashed and grabbed and moved on while you're slowly following up 11/n
Did I mention more than 180,000 cases today? Contact tracing is already redundant in many places as the pandemic does its exponential thing. Those where it isn't yet should preserve it. All places should take action to slow transmission 12/n
I said this in the spring and it has served me well dealing with an adversary I only see once it has moved on - however bad you think the situation is, assume it's worse. And then assume it's worse than that for good measure 13/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a lot of talk about 'preserving healthcare' as a primary goal of pandemic management. That's not wrong, but it begs the question of what exactly we mean by 'preserving healthcare'. I recommend this article in the @NEJM & will add a couple comments nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
So for some 'preserving healthcare' means avoiding all ICU beds being occupied by the pandemic. This is obviously bad. It's also a very low bar. If we get even close to this, where do you put patients recovering from surgery? Or emergency ICU admissions for other things? 2/n
This is not a hypothetical☝️🏽. So let's say we stop short of crashing the ICUs with patients - we would still end up with shortages of skilled nurses elsewhere in the system, compromising healthcare. When they are redirected at the pandemic other care is affected 3/n
Some of the replies to this have made it clear people still think Covid tests are all painful, and would avoid them. That's *not true*. This👇🏽is a swab for a Covid test, and a PCR test at that. And that's as far as it got into my nose 1/n
We've come a long way since the early days of the pandemic. Then, concerns about sensitivity meant that tests were done on nasopharyngeal swabs, because we were not confident that a nasal swab like this would be accurate enough 2/n
The nasopharynx is right at the back of the nasal cavity, a swab like this is the sort of thing you'd remember. And if you don't know much about test sensitivity it is the starting point. As time goes on, we can ask whether you lose sensitivity with other sampling methods 3/n
On the eve of the election, this paper from me and others lays out the impact of the federal government on the pandemic, it's not good link.springer.com/article/10.100… 1/n
1st the failure to prevent introductions. Lots of dramatic posturing against China, while the virus found ample opportunity to enter the country from Europe. Pandemics are, by definition, global 2/n
2nd Have you noticed the appalling numbers of healthcare workers who have lost their lives? We have known all along one of the most important ways to help them is Personal Protective Equipment or PPE khn.org/news/lost-on-t… 3/n
The severity of covid varies greatly by age, with risks of death in young people often said to be equivalent to those of flu. This is one of the most pernicious pieces of misinformation I have noticed in the pandemic. This is why 1/n
first of all, let me be clear that this is *only* based on deaths. There is plenty accumulating evidence that ~10% of people can have long term illness (long covid) lasting for months and this includes young people. I know some. You may too 2/n
It is correct that younger people are much less likely to die from covid, but younger people are much less likely to die period - from covid *or* flu. So how many younger people typically die of seasonal flu? Fortunately @CDCFlu has asked that question for us 3/n
The changing political geography of the pandemic in the US. In the spring the densely populated deep blue NE was hit hard, but since July things have flipped and cases and deaths are now highest in rural GOP voting areas. Featuring work from us washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10…
It also quotes @AliHMokdad who says, rightly "it didn’t show up immediately in rural communities,” he said. “And then people in these communities felt, ‘That’s not us, that’s the big cities.’ They let down their guard.” But there's something else here
the introductions to large urban areas are predictable, simply because of the numbers of opportunities, while for smaller rural communities it is more random. But given time the virus will get there eventually
With many other experts in infectious disease and allied fields, I'm proud to sign and have done my bit to help write this in @TheLancet which explains the *actual* expert consensus on the #COVID19 pandemic and the need for action marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lanc…
The letter states as clearly as can be that approaches to the pandemic that seek immunity through natural infection are dangerous, and explains why
This is a collaborative effort with many brilliant people, but @dgurdasani1 deserves special mention, for the tireless way she combined viewpoints and expertise from many different fields to build this statement of *consensus*.