4 ms·
A valid point to raise, but things may not be that bad. The Washington Post has an article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/17/rapid-coronavirus-t
by adrianmonk 5y ago
A valid point to raise, but things may not be that bad. The Washington Post has an article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/17/rapid-coronavirus-tests-accuracy-omicron/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/17/rapid-coron...) about this.
Three key points from the article:
(1) Rapid tests probably do have a harder time detecting omicron.
(2) Two new rapid tests (from Roche, Siemens), granted EUA in December, "happen" to work "really well" against omicron.
(3) Some of the tests the government will distribute are Roche tests.
Another recent article (https://www.medtechdive.com/news/biden-administration-buy-500m-more-covid-tests/617183/ https://www.medtechdive.com/news/biden-administration-buy-50...) says the government has contracted with Abbott, iHealth, and Roche for its first 380 million test kits.
So in that first 380 million, 1 out of 3 is already good for omicron. Hopefully as they work toward more contracts for the remainder of the 1 billion tests, the government will try to take omicron into account.
- flutas 5y agoI just want to point out this is a false assumption. > So in that first 380 million, 1 out of 3 is already good for omicron. The text says those 3 companies have been contracted for a combined 380 million tests. It doesn't say equally, or list a number for them. You could have a worst case scenario (I'm being overly dramatic here) of 1 test from Roche, and 379,999,999 combined tests from Abbott and iHealth.
- adrianmonk 5y agoOK, fair point that I could have phrased that better. I meant 1 out of 3 types of tests present in the first batch, not 1 out of every 3.