The world has never asked this much of clin micro and public health lab workers.
Tests are not just pushed buttons and sloshing liquids. They make fingers ache. They make eyes water. They require sprinting back and forth, and perfect pipetting precision. 2/
We do not often look inside these labs. And for decades, that's been okay. “We’re accustomed to holding things up in the background," one scientist told me. "We enjoy doing it because we know we’re helping people.” 3/
Infectious disease tests have never so heavily commanded public attention. Much of that attention has been critical and contentious. And the people behind the tests are lost. 4/
In interviews, so many people told me they loved their jobs. It broke their hearts not to be able to deliver super-fast tests to every single person who wants one. They said they handled every sample because each one was a life: a person's safety, comfort, health. 5/
They also said they were terrified of being portrayed as martyrs. They didn't want the spotlight, they said. They just wanted everyone to be safe and well, and understand how testing is done. 6/
I hope this piece helped to do that, just a little.
It was an honor to report it. 7/
Thank you to @melmillerphd and Liz Stoeppler at UNC; @paigemklarkin and Chris Sutherland at NorthShore; @KarissaPhD at TriCore; April Abbott and Chelsa Ashley at Deaconess; @omaigarner at UCLA... 8/
... @darcyavelasquez and @SJLovesMicro at Children's Colorado; @MidwestMicrobes and Marissa Larson at KU; Tyler Murray and Natalie Williams-Bouyer at UTMB; Taylor Smith at Georgia's PHL; Joanne Bartkus, formerly of Minnesota's PHL 9/
And a massive thank you to my editor, @alanburdick, who took a chance with this piece and offered phenomenal feedback along the way, and @McMarbled, who helped adorn the piece with gorgeous photos. And thank you for reading. 10/10
In the leadup to the holidays, maybe we can start talking about our coronavirus tests in a slightly different way.
If you do not test positive for the coronavirus, consider that is more about the virus being "not detected," rather than you being "negative" for the virus. 1/
Because maybe the virus is there — but it's not yet present at high enough levels to be found on a test. You could still be infected. You could still be contagious. You could test again tomorrow and be positive; you could test again in five hours and be positive. 2/
Or perhaps you're not infected yet. A test is a snapshot in time; it says nothing about your status in the future. Every trip to the grocery store, even masked, could be an exposure. And a test today won't catch tomorrow's infection. Tests are also imperfect. 3/
Researchers working with harmless, noninfectious genetic material from the virus (in the form of DNA) were testing positive, over and over again.
They weren't shoving their science up their noses. They were being careful, and doing great work.
The DNA clung to them anyway. 2/
If that DNA happened to overlap with the target of a coronavirus test, that quickly spelled trouble for some. The test picked up that "contaminating" DNA, and thought hey, this is exactly what I was looking for. Positive. 3/
Rapid tests are already being used to screen people without symptoms for the coronavirus — even though they're not cleared for this purpose, and the data in asymptomatics is sparse.
Some of that data is emerging. It might not be what some hoped. 1/
Is there still a role for rapid tests? Absolutely. More data will be needed to figure out where they fit in best. But for now, it's crucial for people to understand that not all coronavirus test negatives are created equal. 2/
Testing negative on less sensitive tests, for example, might not mean you're virus-free.
Could it mean you're not infectious? Maybe. That's really, really hard to test.
It's very likely to be the case that people will less virus in their bodies are less infectious. 3/