This study about the restaurant says "We also did not perform serologic studies of swab sample–negative asymptomatic family members and other diners to estimate risk for infection.". So they admit they didn't test the rest, that renders the whole thing very iffy.
No, they tested them. It's in your quote. They didn't then also do serologic tests.
-
-
I'd be grateful if you could explain - so what type of serologic tests (of negative-swabs) didn't they do? What do they mean by that?
-
The way we test for infection is via a swab. If someone was negative and showed no symptoms, they did not then *also* go back much later to test for antibodies (which are, at the moment, less reliable anyway). So they already had negative test + no symptoms. More than reasonable!
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.