In the article, Jon Deeks, derides the tests saying the tests:

"missed 60% of the cases which would have been picked up by PCR" - Jon Deeks

YES! This is a good thing!

MOST time someone is PCR+, they are No Longer Infectious! Rapid tests are catching the infectious only!

This issue is mentioned above continues to plague people's understanding of rapid tests

The tests are different

Rapid Antigen Tests are BETTER than PCR at being specific for infectious virus

A public health test should not pick up people after they are infectious

Importantly, we've found the rapid test used in the UK, the Innova test, is doing a great job w sensitivity & Specificity

In frequent testing, It often **catches new PCR positives BEFORE the PCR gets the results back**

And in >2000 tests, no false positives yet!

Our findings of VERY high sensitivity in frequent testing match the expectation that Rapid Ag tests catch people when they are infectious but not after they recover from being infectious

Similar findings were made in Liverpool too!

In Liverpool, if you look at the relevant viral loads, (i.e. greater than [100K - 1M], the Innova test performed very well, with >80% overall and >90% for the higher viral loads.

All in all, the UK's decision to use rapid tests appears to be proving extremely beneficial.

Also, it's not just culture data I using to state issues around transmissibility. That would be unwise

Its integration of epidemiological transmission data, PCR RNA data, animal experiments and culture pos vs. time & RNA

Taken together, the data all points in same direction.
You can follow @michaelmina_lab.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.