The problem this exposes is that even if contact traced very quickly, they will be likely to come up negative on a test even if infected. Wonder if they repeated this with a different test (e.g. saliva test) the results would turn out differently.
-
-
-
Maybe those with significant exposure will need to isolate until ~7d from exposure, at which point testing will be the most sensitive. Or maybe serial testing. It seems there is still a lot unknown right now and this data isn't perfect.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t it the opposite? That study suggests there’s no point in testing someone soon after contact because you’re very likely to get a false negative.
-
Depending on the nature of the contact, they could be asked to or required to quarantine?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Right. What should have happened is that you repeatedly and universally test anyone performing any essential operating jobs during the 2-4 months of lockdown so that you don't rely on contact tracing alone to nab those cases. Horse is way out of the gate on that here though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.