At what point was the message of risk reduction (not elimination) and need for serial testing if we want to catch ppl when infectious lost.
There’s a weird focus on first day of infectiousness - as though all tests are day 1
1:
@EmilyAnthes
nytimes.com/2022/01/05/hea…
There’s a weird focus on first day of infectiousness - as though all tests are day 1
1:
@EmilyAnthes
nytimes.com/2022/01/05/hea…
Importantly, this NYT article didn’t highlight the right interpretation of that study IMO. The majority of difference isnt PCR vs antigen.
The difference was Saliva vs Nasal swab.
When comparing PCR vs Antigen in nasal swab vs nasal swab, the relationship was as expected
2/
The difference was Saliva vs Nasal swab.
When comparing PCR vs Antigen in nasal swab vs nasal swab, the relationship was as expected
2/
The title of the paper should have been
Discordant results between Saliva and Nasal swab specimens
But we’ve actually seen or known this for other variants - saliva becomes positive sooner
3/
Discordant results between Saliva and Nasal swab specimens
But we’ve actually seen or known this for other variants - saliva becomes positive sooner
3/
Overall, the study adds to data we’ve seen for other variants & shows it MAY be exacerbated w Omicron
But it does NOT show reduced sensitivity of a rapid antigen test.
It shows increased transmissibility when the virus isn’t yet in nose.
totally different
4/
But it does NOT show reduced sensitivity of a rapid antigen test.
It shows increased transmissibility when the virus isn’t yet in nose.
totally different
4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
