Essentially, we created a barometer that gives the growth rate (or decay rate) of an epidemic based entirely on whether the distribution of viral loads in ppl at a single time in a population is averaging high (epidemic growing) or low (epidemic declining).
2/x
This property of epidemics (when they are going up, detected virus loads are higher on average) has caused massive confusion.
The virus itself isn’t changing nor are the actual virus loads inside of individual people...
3/x
Instead, when an outbreak is increasing exponentially, the majority of positive samples collected coming from people who have very recently been infected - and thus have high virus loads bc peak titers are usually within 48hrs of turning PCR positive...
4/x
On other hand, when an outbreak is subsiding, the vast majority of people detected via surveillance w PCR are no longer infectious, and thus have, on average, very low viral RNA loads.
The distribution of Ct values alone gives us a metric to know the outbreak trajectory
5/x
This work demonstrates that Ct values ARE extremely valuable for public health and SHOULD be reported to public health authorities and that we can clearly find the patterns demonstrate that Ct values are meaningful at the individual level too, which has been debated.
6/x
@jameshay218 has 2 threads on this (earlier & one today)
Links 👇
7/x
Here he details the new research.... but if not yet acquainted with how it all works, see next tweet for a link to an original thread he wrote describing the basics underpinning this all. It’s very cool mix of within-host kinetics and Epidemiology (my favorite to mix!)
Here is an earlier tweet thread that @jameshay218 wrote on the topic that goes through and details the basic mechanisms underlying this very cool phenomenon that we can take advantage of for public health!
I’ve spoken on sensitivity and why rapid Ag tests shouldn’t be compared to PCR
Nevertheless, we’re stuck comparing to PCR. So, to deal w this, “we” have taken to comparing rapid antigen tests to PCR results below specific Ct values that may represent contagious virus loads
2/x
In many studies, Ct of <30 or <25 are considered to be likely contagious or “high virus”, respectively
HOWEVER this is bad. We must stop assuming this
Not all labs are the same
A Ct 25 in many labs may = a Ct of 18 elsewhere
This happened in Liverpool w Innova evaluation
3/x
Good thing is the mRNA vaccines provided exceptional efficacy. But that was also when plasmablasts (temporary antibody producing cells) were fully abundant. We don’t know the efficacy after a few months after they all die off. Hopefully will remain very high and protect. But..???
We also do not know (or at least so far I haven’t heard) whether people are getting severely ill or not. If the AZ vaccine prevents severe disease w the new variant, then that can be good enough. I wish this part was reported so far.
Possible we may be starting see a combination of seasonality on our side and likely seeing herd effects kick in.
1/x
On seasonality:
We knew in the summer that this virus was going to roar back in the fall. It did!
While coronaviruses collectively have a broad window each year, We can see that each individual coronavirus in the graph 👆has only a few months when it peaks. And then drops
2/x
This virus started really hitting us hard a second time in November. Oct-Jan may well be this viruses peak transmission window. We could be entering a reprieve from its grasp, at least for a while. If so, could help us get vaccines out and control spread quickly.
3/x
If you see papers/media that show very low sensitivity for rapid Ag tests (i.e. 30%-60% sensitivity) the report is most likely making a common mistake:
Comparing a test meant to detect viable virus to a test that can detect minuscule amounts of RNA is a mistake.
1/x
PCR RNA stays around long after live virus is cleared
So if you see a paper that shows very low sensitivity, ask:
"Are they comparing rapid antigen tests to "anytime" PCR RNA positivity? (Especially studies asking about sensitivity among asymptomatics)
2/x
To interpret this, you should know that only 25%-40% of the time someone is PCR positive are they infectious w live virus.
So... even a test that is 100% sensitive for live virus should only show a 25%-40% sensitivity against PCR among asymptomatic people.
3/x
Waning immunity is likely as a component. The immune system memory is just like real memory. I needs to be exercised w repetition - like studying for a test. A single event will not likely offer life long immunity.
2/x
My real concern is mutation that will evade, even If partial our immune responses to earlier versions of the virus or to vaccines being made (which are directed specifically towards mimicking earlier versions)
We have to act now on slowing spread in this case w/out immunity
3/x
It’s a new virus - not in an optimal state upon “birth” as it leaped into humans.
Has so much room to grow and ‘learn’
Increases in transmission rates and evasion of immunity should be expected.
We can anticipate and act accordingly.
1/x
We can start now to think through new vaccine designs that are not all narrow number of epitopes (in this case single [important] protein) and essentially identical to each other.
We can start “future proofing” our vaccine design choices to reduce immense risk of escape.
2/x
We can also immediately start building an Arsenal of contingency plans.
Tools that will not be susceptible to the same risk of mutants escaping immunity that arise from the ecological pressures from vaccines and infections....
3/x