Read on Twitter
I feel like Sisyphus right after he loses his grip on the boulder. People are finally coming around the realization that high-volume screening of asymptomatic people is a powerful tool for disease control and does not require high-sensitivity tests. (e.g. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/cheap-daily-covid-tests-could-be-akin-to-vaccine/)
So what does the @US_FDA do? Today, they turned around and recommend *exactly the opposite*. It's just a recommendation, because they're talking about off-label use. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-don-t-use-rapid-covid-tests-people-without-symptoms-n1236802
But given that they control the approval process for on-label use of the technology, this is potentially a huge blow. If the @US_FDA refuses to acknowledge the value of low sensitivity high volume screening, companies won't invest in the technology let alone deploy it.
If the @US_FDA were trying to undercut any rapid increase of US testing capacity, today's update to their guidelines would constitute a significant step in that direction.
Let's look at their recommendation (7th item under General FAQ at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/faqs-testing-sars-cov-2#5f36c1c3ddbe9)
They are talking about screening of asymptomatics not suspected of having COVID-19—and recommend against lower sensitivity tests of the sort that can be carried out cheaply and rapidly.
They are talking about screening of asymptomatics not suspected of having COVID-19—and recommend against lower sensitivity tests of the sort that can be carried out cheaply and rapidly.
It's exhausting. We are being not merely failed, but absolutely *undercut* by our government agencies at every step of the way.
Given Trump's repeated calls for slowing down testing, it's very hard not to see this as a deliberate effort to keep testing to minimum in the US.
Given Trump's repeated calls for slowing down testing, it's very hard not to see this as a deliberate effort to keep testing to minimum in the US.
The problem is that when you try to knock out surveillance testing for public relations purposes, you lose the powerful infection control capacity that comes from proactive screening, and the epidemic once again is worse than it had to be.
