🧵 When the goal is limiting transmission, timing of tests is everything
If you wait days for positive results before isolating, the time spent waiting must be factored in to the “effectiveness sensitivity” of a test.
Time is always ignored as a test metric. This is wrong
1/
If people are infectious for 6 days and you have to wait 2 days for results, then for every 3 positive people detected, you miss the equivalent of an entire infection Bc the sensitivity while waiting is 0%.
This means the “effective sensitivity” cannot break 67%. But worse…
2/
What’s particularly bad but also ignored is the **0% sensitivity** while awaiting a lab PCR result is for everyone - even people who are at absolute peak virus titers and immediate isolation is most important. For these people, rapid tests detect >95% - with immediate action
3/
When we say “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, it is stigmatizing & inaccurate - this is a pandemic of a virus that is disproportionately afflicting unvaccinated
I urge us to consider root causes of why so many are unvaccinated
🧵 When ppl give anecdotes about public health efforts not working - please proceed cautiously
It is rare that public health success makes headlines or goes viral Bc success in public health almost always represents the absence of anything interesting.
Bias is tough to spot
1/
Imagine for example if a vax failure in a single person was the only times vaccines made headlines. We’d think they didn’t work. But this is why we have trials - to ensure that we put any Vax failures into proper perspective and measure rates of success vs failure
2/
The same goes for anecdotes around tests, for example:
The White House Rose Garden outbreak made headlines and made everyone think that tests don’t work.
What was not discussed were the hundreds of WH events w no outbreaks owing exclusively in that WH to testing.
3/