Thank you, Katelyn, for another clear concise summary of current conditions. You mentioned that "people are just not testing anymore". It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the the ways in which increased availability of at-home testing (the results of which are usually not reported) has affected the use of PCR tests at public-hea…
Thank you, Katelyn, for another clear concise summary of current conditions. You mentioned that "people are just not testing anymore". It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the the ways in which increased availability of at-home testing (the results of which are usually not reported) has affected the use of PCR tests at public-health agency sites, and how that in turn impacts our ability to collect population-level data.
We may well be past the point where testing everyone periodically will be useful (I say this knowing the data geek in me really wants those data!) because, well, those data are now being ignored by most of the governments who employ public health professionals.
In clinical medicine there's a trope that, if you don't want to find a fever, don't check a temperature. That's been the theme for the entire pandemic, in most venues after the original PCR test kit debacle with failed kits. Many states prioritized testing solely to individuals who met certain criteria, e.g., having traveled to an affected region, early on, or referred by a provider based on symptoms and clinical suspicion, or mandates from officials that patients remain symptomatic for some minimum period prior to testing (e.g., 5 days of symptoms before being ALLOWED to get a PCR test).
At home antigen and molecular tests are, as you note, usually not recorded or tracked. No rational tracking mechanism was ever developed nationwide, although some of the test manufacturers do have a way to self-report, and some few states, including Colorado, my new home, accept at-home test results, and track them, including them as a category in their state internal reports. And, in talking to their epidemiologists, they did this preemptively, with a plan, and it's been beneficial.
Personally, I'd love to see a national data collection project where we collect enough data to assure no one is spoofing or ballot-stuffing the system, but use relatively anonymized data from home testing to obtain a better sense of community spread. If coupled to community serology testing the data enhancement would allow us doing this analysis to have a much better understanding of the level of community exposure and spread.
Interesting question… The last forecast for Paxlovid availability didn’t look favorable for wide availability soon. I can’t offer conjecture on the second question now.
As an antiviral, paxlovid won’t affect testing unless it’s started before testing. We’ve already ruined the testing landscape, though. Positivity and absolute case numbers are nearly… or virtually meaningless.
Thank you, Katelyn, for another clear concise summary of current conditions. You mentioned that "people are just not testing anymore". It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the the ways in which increased availability of at-home testing (the results of which are usually not reported) has affected the use of PCR tests at public-health agency sites, and how that in turn impacts our ability to collect population-level data.
We may well be past the point where testing everyone periodically will be useful (I say this knowing the data geek in me really wants those data!) because, well, those data are now being ignored by most of the governments who employ public health professionals.
In clinical medicine there's a trope that, if you don't want to find a fever, don't check a temperature. That's been the theme for the entire pandemic, in most venues after the original PCR test kit debacle with failed kits. Many states prioritized testing solely to individuals who met certain criteria, e.g., having traveled to an affected region, early on, or referred by a provider based on symptoms and clinical suspicion, or mandates from officials that patients remain symptomatic for some minimum period prior to testing (e.g., 5 days of symptoms before being ALLOWED to get a PCR test).
At home antigen and molecular tests are, as you note, usually not recorded or tracked. No rational tracking mechanism was ever developed nationwide, although some of the test manufacturers do have a way to self-report, and some few states, including Colorado, my new home, accept at-home test results, and track them, including them as a category in their state internal reports. And, in talking to their epidemiologists, they did this preemptively, with a plan, and it's been beneficial.
Personally, I'd love to see a national data collection project where we collect enough data to assure no one is spoofing or ballot-stuffing the system, but use relatively anonymized data from home testing to obtain a better sense of community spread. If coupled to community serology testing the data enhancement would allow us doing this analysis to have a much better understanding of the level of community exposure and spread.
What will happen to testing if
a) Paxlovid becomes much more widely available
And
b) We discover that Paxlovid is effective for a staggeringly large class of viruses
Interesting question… The last forecast for Paxlovid availability didn’t look favorable for wide availability soon. I can’t offer conjecture on the second question now.
Oh, not asking you to weigh in on whether either of those things are likely to happen. What if they do, at some undetermined time?
As an antiviral, paxlovid won’t affect testing unless it’s started before testing. We’ve already ruined the testing landscape, though. Positivity and absolute case numbers are nearly… or virtually meaningless.