NOTE:

If you see papers/media that show very low sensitivity for rapid Ag tests (i.e. 30%-60% sensitivity) the report is most likely making a common mistake:

Comparing a test meant to detect viable virus to a test that can detect minuscule amounts of RNA is a mistake.

1/x

PCR RNA stays around long after live virus is cleared

So if you see a paper that shows very low sensitivity, ask:

"Are they comparing rapid antigen tests to "anytime" PCR RNA positivity? (Especially studies asking about sensitivity among asymptomatics)

2/x
To interpret this, you should know that only 25%-40% of the time someone is PCR positive are they infectious w live virus.

So... even a test that is 100% sensitive for live virus should only show a 25%-40% sensitivity against PCR among asymptomatic people.

3/x
(For various more epidemiologically complicated reasons having to do with the growth or decay rate of the epidemic, the sensitivity range is actually more like 30% - 60%... but that's for another tweet sometime)...

But to interpret studies of rapid antigen tests...
4/x
Simply put... If you see reports of rapid antigen tests "only" 30% - 60% sensitivity in asymptomatics (vs PCR) - you should think:

"Great! That could well be an exceptional test with sensitivity as high ~905-100% sensitive for likely contagious virus - and its rapid!"

5/x
This is too important to allow yourself to be misguided.

So, unfortunately here, don't always believe scientific papers

You have to ask "Why is the test being done?"

If it is to detect asymptomatic contagious people, then know that comparing vs. PCR is misleading.

6/6
Also, PLEASE don't look only at Ct values against Rapid Ag tests. Need a way to understand what each Ct represents. Some platforms run ~8 Cts lower than CDC / WHO assays. This means that every platform needs to be considered individually. Can Not just say "Ct < 30" = "live virus"
We are finding that whole platforms consistently run low. TaqPath it seems runs low for instance.

So in that case, a Ct of 23 may be more like a Ct of 29/30. This was the case in Liverpool and I believe recently a JCM paper looking at BinaxNOW among asymptomatics in Utah.
Also this: https://t.co/KgmLcvVlS5

More from Society

@danielashby @AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd I'll bite. Let's try to keep it factual. There's a reasonable basis to some aspects of this question, that it might be possible to agree on. Then there are other, more variable, elements which depend on external factors such as transport and energy policy. /1

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd First up, we know reasonably well how much energy it takes to propel a high-speed train along the HS2 route. We can translate that into effective CO2 generated by making some assumptions about how green the electricity grid is. /2

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Secondly, we have a reasonable grasp of how much CO2 is going to be generated by building HS2 - there are standard methods of working this out, based on the amount of steel, concrete, earthmoving, machine-fuelling etc required. /3

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Thirdly, we can estimate how much CO2 is generated by cutting down trees, and how much is captured by planting new trees. We can also estimate how much CO2 is needed to keep the railway running and generated by maintaining the track /4

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd We know how much CO2 is saved by moving goods by freight train on the lines freed up by moving the express trains on to HS2, rather than by truck. /5

You May Also Like