1. I've written about how testing can be be used for personal health, for surveillance, or for mitigation. A new paper by @DanLarremore et al looks at the utility of frequent testing for mitigation, i.e., for finding and isolating infected individuals.https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1274576193333850112 …
-
Show this thread
-
2. In this paper, the authors model viral load over the course of infection and compare the efficacy of mitigation using RT-qPCR with a low limit of detection with that of LAMP testing with a higher limit of detection.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v1 …
1 reply 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
3. Using agent-based and fully-mixed epidemic models, they find that rapid test testing cadences—testing every third day or more frequently can be extremely effective in reducing transmission and infection.pic.twitter.com/8FidZYOrYD
1 reply 8 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Carl T. Bergstrom Retweeted Carl T. Bergstrom
4. This is essentially the strategy that Ted Bergstrom and I have advocated for college reopenings. Their numbers are in the same ballpark as our own estimates.https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1274189959235170304 …
Carl T. Bergstrom added,
Carl T. BergstromVerified account @CT_BergstromMy father Ted Bergstrom and I published an OpEd in the@Chronicle about college reopening. It's behind a paywall, but you're perhaps better off reading our original version anyway. I'm a bit surprised we didn't get a chance to approve the heavy edits. https://chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Reopening-Debate/249014?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_1b … pic.twitter.com/HDZQxDj05gShow this thread1 reply 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
5. The authors compare high-sensitivity tests (pink bars, e.g. RT-qPCR) and lower-sensitivity tests (maroon bars, e.g. LAMP). Because early in infection one moves quickly through the window where high sensitivity is required, it doesn't matter all that much which you use.pic.twitter.com/LvLJWyLtbE
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
6. Another important comparison looks at the delay between testing and receiving results. Because testing for mitigation aims to remove individuals during relatively brief infectious periods, minimizing testing delays is absolutely essential.pic.twitter.com/B0a52nHKdh
2 replies 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CT_Bergstrom
An alternative is the Australian approach, which is to require self-isolation from the time of the test
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
This is for repeated screening for mitigation. So you're testing asymptomatic people with no particular reason to suspect that they are infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Ah right I misunderstood
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.