Thursday, July 30, 2020

SARS CoV-2 Testing

A very important epidemiology paper from Harvard epidemiologists by Michael Mina and colleagues reported the testing sensitivity of various methods, response times for results, costs, and the transmissibility window of an infected person. The importance of this paper lies in comparing the expensive gold standard RT-PCP test versus the value that a cheap and quick method—$1-$2 and 10 minute result time—has for opening schools, businesses, the economy, and society in general. But it also has lessons regarding government and politicized media responses to cheap tests that would make widespread testing possible.

Intelligent people will want to understand some basics about testing and the research source for facts. The article in the New England Journal of Medicine is a key source but some researchers can speak clearly and plainly to the public. Dr. Seheult of Medcram podcasts medical ed courses to clinicians and medical students; he has the gift of presenting difficult concepts clearly. Watch him in Medcram #98 for the testing science.

Dr. Mina, the epidemiologist, an exemplary role model, appeared on the podcast, "This Week in Virology," #640. Dr. Mina explained how the technology already exists for cheap (approx. $1), at-home, COVID-19 tests that provide results in 15 minutes

The sensitivity issue raised by critics triggered the comment from Dr. Faucie that it was a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. We learned from Dr. Mina that the sensitivity of these paper antigen tests is high enough to detect the vast majority of infectious COVID-19 and could be utilized by individuals on a near-daily basis to dramatically slow the spread of this pandemic (and open up schools etc.). This morning, an e-mail announced that on August 5 Dr, Mina will have a live Q/A podcast. We need this breakthrough, and the issue is gathering interest.

Science Sources

    Issue Sources

    Here are some of the popular and respected media that have reported on this testing issue: