Important piece on immediate-result paper tests for COVID. Too often, media describes them as "less accurate." Wrong framework! They& #39;re useful in detecting contagiousness—not mere presence of virus which can show up in PCRs for weeks. Exactly what we need. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/how-to-test-every-american-for-covid-19-every-day/615217/">https://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...

PCR-tests can find tiniest remnants of the virus for a long, long time. It& #39;s like finding fingerprints and acting like the thief is still in the house! Remember all those scary, sensationalist stories about "re-infections"? Many were likely PCR picking up RNA remnants for months.

As an individual diagnostic test at a point in time, PCR& #39;s ability to find every last virus bit might be useful but as a public-health screening tool, what we want is mass, cheap, rapid turnaround (immediate!) *and* a signal only when it matters—high likelihood of infectiousness.

Just like masks, there is a misunderstanding of what rapid tests like this are good for. They& #39;re key usefulness is to protect *others* from the infectious person, which in turn protects everyone by creating a public good: a less-infectious world. Stop calling them less accurate.

Yep. Temperature checks are pandemic theater for the most part and given the substantial role of a/presymptomatic transmission, symptom checks are a band-aid, if that. Daily immediate screening tests like this would be *for real* useful for screening. https://twitter.com/jordanfrank/status/1294295174647091203">https://twitter.com/jordanfra...

These are *NOT* mediocre though. Once we frame them correctly, THEY ARE BETTER for what we are trying to do. For public health purposes, PCR tests are mediocre. A positive signal that lasts for weeks (PCR) is not as useful; and they are expensive and slow. https://twitter.com/luke_fernandez/status/1294295139402149888">https://twitter.com/luke_fern...