There are two issues. Are rapid tests useful for ending/prolonging isolation? I think the answer is yes. Second issue is: if you don’t have enough of them, what are you gonna do as a coping strategy? That is also worth looking into, and ideally based on data like this.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Nothing is ideal without tests, but if it is bimodal, I’d be curious about spring the boosted/vaxxed without symptoms on day three and keep anyone with symptoms until two consequent symptom-free days, on or later than day five as one potential trade-off. (Wearing good masks).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Bergstrom made some estimateshttps://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1479938654579544065?s=20 …
-
Yeah, reading it now. Good to try to model these things given the less-than-ideal situation. I’d also love to see a more bimodal infectious period modeling, and differentiate by vaccination/symptoms status based on tracking data like the one above.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
3-6 days seems like a good range that covers 99% of the people and the smart and science-based approach would be to quarantine people for at least 6 days.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, why would you only look at 8/21 people in the 3-6 day timespan?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Day of diagnosis and day of symptom onset can be different depending on testing strategy, and I think even more so when the study uses PCR. In fall, I felt like ppl I knew got PCR for a high exposure risk but mainly did LFTs if they had mild symptoms w/ no suspected exposure.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Why don't we have studies like this?" This is mystifying to me. You can't swing a cat without hitting 10 people who are either infected or likely to be. Need way more of this kind of study with way higher # participants, and gotta do it for every new VOC.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The test companies couldn't get FDA approval to report cycle counts because they couldn't prove those were clinically significant. Now that we know that they are it's too late, no one wants to revise the testing protocols and admit they could have been doing it better all along.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
re: the binning, my guess is that the small N had something to do with it (only 21 people, with 83 samples among them). Perhaps longitudinal followup was haphazard. I really wish we were not having to MacGyver an evidence basis for CDC policy after the fact.
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.