RT @heysugardumplin: @BeGillz They've always had a narrow window of efficacy... this is an old study, have no idea what their efficacy woul…
RT @heysugardumplin: @BeGillz They've always had a narrow window of efficacy... this is an old study, have no idea what their efficacy woul…
RT @heysugardumplin: @BeGillz They've always had a narrow window of efficacy... this is an old study, have no idea what their efficacy woul…
@BeGillz They've always had a narrow window of efficacy... this is an old study, have no idea what their efficacy would be now.
@nursekelsey One about detection times for PCRs... https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
@TinaNYB13 @patriciaorpat @1goodtern They're better than lateral flows but there are still issues with their efficacy;
@mryoung151 We've known for a while that nose and throat swabbing isn't an ideal way to be testing for ongoing infection, even PCRs have a narrow window in which they are more effective, we've known all this for ages;
@vanessainstem They're not good at picking up ongoing infections...
@ReesiePeacie @indigogworl PCRs are better but have a time window, 2-10 post onset of symptoms that they are able to detect live virus reliably, then their efficacy tails off dramatically; https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
@BagTooth @nursekelsey Undoubtably better than LFTs but even with PCRs there were issues with their efficacy from before all the different strains started popping up...
@Paul_Briley @EnemyInAState When is important too...
RT @heysugardumplin: @aparachick @1goodtern PCR nose and throat sampling isn't that reliable either, they are most effective at detecting t…
@BengaliTigger @dukeofnewyork3 In this study they compared detectable virus PCR throat and nose testing to sampling taken from lower respiratory tract and faecal testing, it showed virus detection varied greatly.
@aparachick @1goodtern PCR nose and throat sampling isn't that reliable either, they are most effective at detecting the virus 2-10 days after initial onset of symptoms then their efficacy wanes dramatically. https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
@nursekelsey @LongCovidHell A study on PCRs; https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
@Kevin_McKernan @NotCricket2 @ytengra @DrAseemMalhotra @ClareCraigPath It seemed to be Mr Not Cricket2’s primary concern. Can’t link his tweet because he has blocked me. Whilst PCR can stay +ve for months this is not usual - this meta-analysis quoted half
RT @FinchTH: We ever gonna address the misinformation that claims that PCR testing after infection isn’t useful and people are positive for…
RT @FinchTH: We ever gonna address the misinformation that claims that PCR testing after infection isn’t useful and people are positive for…
@dr_handler @jbloom_lab @zeynep At the time there was not enough understanding about the false negative rate increase curve over time between infection and blood sample. Now there is. But everybody still pretends there is no problem.
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
@Catfish_Man @bbum So testing is very helpful for catching a bunch of cases, but it's never been able to catch them all. Here's a paper with way more information than I remember and probably more than you need: https://t.co/lGX81pG0xS
@RoccoLostInHull You know nose and throat swabs are not really not that reliable? For example the PCR tests are only really effective between 2-10 after onset of symptoms then their effectiveness wanes drastically... https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
RT @gdemaneuf: For reference this study shows how the RT-PCR detection drops off after 2 weeks: https://t.co/bobXnr4134 https://t.co/pzJAY…
RT @gdemaneuf: For reference this study shows how the RT-PCR detection drops off after 2 weeks: https://t.co/bobXnr4134 https://t.co/pzJAY…
RT @gdemaneuf: For reference this study shows how the RT-PCR detection drops off after 2 weeks: https://t.co/bobXnr4134 https://t.co/pzJAY…
For reference this study shows how the RT-PCR detection drops off after 2 weeks: https://t.co/bobXnr4134 https://t.co/pzJAYbu2hD
@alexmeshkin If a child has had an infection in the past 4 months they may show false positives though. https://t.co/przDacqo3U Here's a study indicating 46 days post infection can reflect positive on a PCR.
@B_Roettger @tedcruz May want to check with a medical professional, but I’m quite certain a test doesn’t always show immediate infection. https://t.co/GTPPrEc4qj
@NielsANielsen @Peanutsatay @ECDC_EU 46 dage mellen symptom till man ku finne spor af virus hos nogle ! Så 14 dage efter du er frisk, som test centre har for rejse-pcr har som krav lyder godt nok ... Imho https://t.co/WpFAbyyJaF
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
RT @ShaneyWright: PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNh…
PCR ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 is also influenced by when, during infection, the test is done (5): https://t.co/coQxKNhN1R.
این محدودیت تکثیر صرفا تئوری هم نیست البته و مطالعه هم شده 👇 تو این مطالعه گسترده، از بررسی بیش از 5000 مطالعه دیگه به این نتیجه رسیدن که بعد از گذشت 10 روز از شروع بیماری دیگه عملا نمیشه با PCR هم ویروسی در مراکز تنفسی بدن یافت https://t.co/fpOqz0exju
@Towlie1981 @SmallRedOne CT- Cycle Threshold is a PCR parameter not LFT but you are right that a +ve LFT is a good indication of significant infectivity. PCR testing does sometimes show +ve a long time after infection/symptoms/infectivity, see https://t.c
@chefofmembers @mind_steps @c_drosten Und hier eine Metastudie dazu. " No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. " https://t.co/wvJ8a5oCfO alternative dazu
@A_Colker @Chanabassarah @akheriaty @CDCDirector https://t.co/LLXt4ycEKI They aren't "viral fragments" RNA is not stable -post symptoms, post "readily infectious" is not the same as "viral fragments"
@breeallegretti Not sure if this is still current for currently circulating variants https://t.co/zL7dncjn1S https://t.co/eXihiT5yZU
@KT_Baek @SSI_dk Jeg synes "forventes" virker lige stærkt nok. Jeg har af flere omgang som ren amatør fosøgt at finde ud af, hvor længe PCR-test måtte være positive - og jeg ville klart forvente at en ægte positiv var negativ før 90 dage. https://t.co/W
@KirstyMcAndrewC @Kezza101064 about when and who should be offered a PCR test have been based on those findings. There’s plenty of studies that have shown their efficacy wanes after 10 days from initial infection; https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
@stevenjoe2012 @Hotdragon0 @toadmeister As you can see, nasopharyngeal PCR positivity is rare beyond 35 days post-symptoms, and usually reflects either inability to clear the virus (e.g. immunosuppression) or ongoing critical illness. We serially test pati
@EWoodhouse7 @ProfessorAkston @EthicalSkeptic @Kevin_McKernan https://t.co/0J2Sgd3ovh Half nasopharyngeal still positive for 10-14 days. So for both these to go negative so quick is surprising. Shame they didn't do antibodies. I expect blood samples were
@Zabsteroz @ellymelly Please cite your claims re PCR testing. 30 sec on Google Scholar suggests otherwise. Here’s one…. https://t.co/NnZV03JeMV
@AK_Meier Eben nicht - man ist ja nicht nur eine Woche PCR-positiv, sondern länger (https://t.co/LjNTitQaey). Davon abgesehen hängst du dich an dem worst case Szenario UK auf was sich nicht auf D übertragen lässt. Du wirst, glaube ich, keine Epidemiolo
@mattyno33 @DE2344 @RandomA81647307 @native719 See: https://t.co/C1OfCkGgzS After 30 days, positive test results are certainly less than 5%, and approaching 1% for non-hospitalized patients. (Yes, it's still not 0) And given this, someone with a positive
@PirtaHotulainen @Jarkko_Hakala @AnnaStanu @risto_kuosa Tässä vähän tarkemmin (ihan sukkana eka papru mikä tuli vastaan). Puolet PCR-positiivisia vielä pari viikkoa oireiden alkamisesta, mutta kuukauden kuluttua vain harva. https://t.co/PJbsm2A5Dt https://
@bethemomentnow @BogochIsaac PCR will be positive as long as there's a sufficient amount of viral genetic material in the person. In some, up to 46 days after symptoms appeared. https://t.co/rRmYD2AcWy
@PhilippaWrigh15 Useful paper# https://t.co/78NCrdVcHj
@saboteurspk @JanDakarcz @pollert11 @Vladimir1971Por Při bezchybně provedeném odběru je senzitivita PCR testů téměř 100%. Viz seznam schválených testů v JP https://t.co/Ax4Gb4k5Qo a data o senzitivitě jednoho japonského testu https://t.co/YOthv2GCsH V reál
@LaymansScience @mash78203027 @JoMallon2 @kewley74 @ClarkeMicah @InCytometry @TakethatCt https://t.co/qmIb5qDNXr would you look at that those odds certainly are still there even quite a long while after.
@JSTsci @SallyMi83941850 @Unusual_Times Not sure if data has changed since this: https://t.co/M683MkcEEo
@marjearran so research gas shown detection after 48hrs by PcR test is more effective....so 48 hr pcr only good for people infected 72 hours before... quite a joke https://t.co/B2uBhSD8OK
@mcfunny @CuriosaRose @pohutukawa @IdunsDaughter @BioinfoTools @CraigARobinson @jonfarquhar1 Just found this which would be closer to your three weeks (except for sputum) https://t.co/hmSZgnPcXL https://t.co/frwLO3eyYr
Whoa. Late testing is a problem. "At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data | BMC Medicine | Full Text" https://t.co/dh1BSzzkUB https://t.c
@bosscrow2 @DrBruceScott @mumblemews PCR is usually positive for a week after symptom onset for nasopharyngeal swabbing, longer for stool. For example I had a friend in hospital fighting an infection testing negative in his throat and positive in his stool
@sueytonius @RoyPentland And more for your perfect test. Cochran: Implications for practice- None of these markers as stand‐alone tests are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID‐19. https://t.co/dZnjRKT0jx https://t.co/5EsCmm9kyZ
@leeeeeloooooo Dobrý den. Může se teoreticky stát, že jste si infekce nevšimla, neboť jste měla bezpříznakový či mírný průběh a o infekci se dozvíte takto zpětně, například se zpožděním 1 týdne, ale ne půl roku. I tehdy ale ještě můžete být infekční. ➡️ V
@fragilesea Technically carrier ka pa din. So nakakahawa ka pa din. Yung test schedule ng swab is naka sakto dun sa mga panahon na madaming specimen na makukuha para sure yung results ng test. https://t.co/i4SWvuzB8l
@Frances14792222 @PimSnaathorst @NOS Bij testen personen met symptomen is dit wel degelijk relevant voor de diagnose. Na besmetting nog positief testen gaat in weken, niet in maanden, na 4-6 weken houdt dit wel op. PCR wordt niet positief van griep of verk
@darkagenda can you read this and give me your opinion as I think they are stating PCR tests are not good for testing Covid, https://t.co/jpw3K7l7ux
0-4 days after #covid19 people most likely still have a positive #covid19 test https://t.co/MDjMvq4A56
@EpicFeil_ @BallouxFrancois May be even worse. Note that there is a confounder: not everyone gets tested days after a positive test, probably a selection this is from a review: https://t.co/lLyJAFAaDl
@KlinkeStu @ClarkeMicah No seriously , the science is weird , the test for covid is non specific & open to bias .The same test will find all these , not given to conspiracy but it makes one think . see screenshot . https://t.co/uYvdRP7gjQ https://t.co/
@shaftoflame @Pteroda06253774 @nevervotedtory1 Here have a look at the conclusion on this; https://t.co/lPXf0R4AGY
@samaton10037821 @enokidakanoko @yumidesu_4649 PCRの件は、下記を見て頂ければ分かりますが、10-14時点で陰性になるのは54%、最長で46日まで陽性だそうです。 PCR陽性=感染性がある ではないというところがなかなか理解されにくいですね。 https://t.co/geQa5uiROz
@nichol77 This https://t.co/cmb7fCcS7M says virus detectable for a media time around 14 days, this https://t.co/vYBegpK5P1 says mean 17 days. Probably less if you only counted low Ct, but (my guess) probably not much less. So the ONS prevalence would be...
@aguscugno @superavitfiscal hasta que no vea evidencia no les voy a creer https://t.co/lqEPB4jnk9 https://t.co/NFc4yfbbKQ
@maurotru https://t.co/1e6bhTNRCK CDC y WHO marcan el mismo rango de tiempo, la media esta en 10 días, aunque hay casos en donde por sensibilidad del kit utilizado o sí realizan la toma rectal puede seguir dando positivo más días
@rmm1963 @vbs_ddps Ein PCR Test hat eine kurze Zeitfenster: ein Paar Tagen vor den Symptomen und bis 14 Tagen nacher. Es ist statistisch selten, dass asymptomatische oder leicht erkrankte ein +PCR Test nach 2 Wochen kriegen. https://t.co/AL1IjKPdLf
@sharpmelk Hope you feel better, I've had similar for two weeks. PCR can detect virus that long after infection, but it's much less sensitive than soon after onset: https://t.co/91GVxWiJw4. A -ve test after a month won't exclude COVID-19, so both PCR &
Bronchoscopy has limited role in inpatients: - higher load in LRT specimens: https://t.co/TOF3TTrAPH - A negative NP swab is reasonably reassuring https://t.co/TXnbWYlFgV https://t.co/PvMquLeRm9
@leftychris3 @mcfunny @TakethatCt @BreezerGalway @MerryBlackcat2 @DrRuthCornock @Glenntwts @MichaelYeadon3 Don’t forget about all the false negatives: https://t.co/XzYAshCGHR https://t.co/UPJlnOrOz8
These: Nächste Bullshit-Welle wird behaupten, dass die #WHO jetzt auch #PCR scheiße findet. Dabei berufen sie sich auf ein Dokument, das es nicht gibt. Ja, PCR findet nicht alles¹ ². Ja, sie ist trotzdem Goldstandard. ¹ https://t.co/1poog0CBAZ ² https://t
@TrishtheSkeptic @HollyParr20 ...very rare, I did see mention on it here: https://t.co/xPJzhOPD1W However it doesn't link to the related study this is taken from? A meta-analysis done at the below link doesn't support this: https://t.co/0v1c9vSuao
@DaveBeep @michaelmina_lab PCR tests will continue detecting the virus long after it can be cultured. (https://t.co/tWtbA9qmYw) This is why in direct comparison there will always be more samples that are PCR positive than there are lateral-flow positive.
RT @jmolerog: La detección temprana del SARS-CoV-2 con PCR, minimiza los falsos negativos. El porcentaje más alto de detección de virus f…
RT @jmolerog: La detección temprana del SARS-CoV-2 con PCR, minimiza los falsos negativos. El porcentaje más alto de detección de virus f…
RT @jmolerog: La detección temprana del SARS-CoV-2 con PCR, minimiza los falsos negativos. El porcentaje más alto de detección de virus f…
RT @jmolerog: La detección temprana del SARS-CoV-2 con PCR, minimiza los falsos negativos. El porcentaje más alto de detección de virus f…
RT @jmolerog: La detección temprana del SARS-CoV-2 con PCR, minimiza los falsos negativos. El porcentaje más alto de detección de virus f…
La detección temprana del SARS-CoV-2 con PCR, minimiza los falsos negativos. El porcentaje más alto de detección de virus fue el muestreo nasofaríngeo entre 0 y 4 días después del inicio de los síntomas. Después de 10 a 14 días, no es tan útil. https://t
'At what times during infection is #SARSCoV2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data' an #openaccess article on #ScienceOpen: https://t.co/KWccKmnPpM
At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A system… https://t.co/rJJZnrEUGb
RT @BMCMedicine: New #openaccess research from Sue Mallett and colleagues: At what times during infection is #SARSCoV2 detectable and no lo…
RT @BMCMedicine: New #openaccess research from Sue Mallett and colleagues: At what times during infection is #SARSCoV2 detectable and no lo…