3 ms·
The problem with the "we're tested all the time" explanation is that we've been told for months now that you can still be contagious even if you test negative a
by TigeriusKirk 6y ago
The problem with the "we're tested all the time" explanation is that we've been told for months now that you can still be contagious even if you test negative and are asymptomatic.
- hammock 6y agoWe have been told that, but the latest "science" says this is false. Study of 10 million patients published in Nature journal two weeks ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w (Worth noting I was trying to find this link with Google and had a hard time. I had to switch to a foreign search engine)
- TigeriusKirk 6y agoFrom just a couple weeks ago - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 "Although there is a lower risk of transmission from asymptomatic people, they might still present a significant public-health risk because they are more likely to be out in the community than isolated at home, says Andrew Azman"
- hammock 6y agoThat's an editorial article that cites a meta-study and a theoretical model, and tries to draw a conclusion. Did you read my study? It's based on direct evidence. "There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases."
- detaro 6y agoThat depends on the test. It's specifically antibody tests that lag, PCR and antigen tests do indicate a lot earlier, and have a good chance of catching an infection early, because they directly detect presence of the virus. cf: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02661-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02661-2