@OxfordSaffa The simplest method is to employ a lateral flow test, which aren't perfect but are 80/90% accurate. https://t.co/4jaFmWnush

@RonZimmernPHG @pash22 Lower but surprisingly not extremely so. An example study suggesting up to 20% of people shedding virus negative on LFT. https://t.co/iqrSGmwLpH

@MichaelSFuhrer @MichaelPlankNZ @RachelleBinny @HellewellJoel Yes, the PCR tests lack 'specificity' to identify infectious individuals. https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@RachelleBinny Thought you might also be interested in this paper. https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@pimpmytweeting @1adrianlogan @artycrafty232 They're more accurate than we previously thought. LFTs are more than 80% effective at detecting any level of Covid-19 infection and likely to be more than 90% effective at detecting who is most infectious when t

@PipSinks @ali__samson It’s pretty accepted now that they’ll pick up the virus if you’re infectious, hence the 2-3 days that you speak of. Most people do use them pretty well, and they are still pretty accurate when not. This article states >90 efficacy

@_LawnKing_ I took your advice and did some investigation of my own. Here's a direct link to the study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Epidemiology: https://t.co/A0HffNrh9L

@Darlene13866342 @TeaBird16 https://t.co/a8QtfAIeDb

@DrGRuralMD https://t.co/tuvAbna29m This UK/US study in Clinical Epidemiology goes some way to answering that, acknowledging that further work is needed.

@julieharrisart Then I don't understand what you mean by 'can give the wrong impression'. LFT seems 80-90% effective at picking up case when infectious , irrespective of if symptomatic or not. ( & 50% when outside infectious period) https://t.co/

@TillTheEndOfEt1 @Life_Disrupted @SpanishDan1 Yea reasonable point. I’ve been searching research papers and they are more accurate than previously thought as well https://t.co/DaaP0w8RPJ I would have liked to have seen things like air purifiers in schools

@drvyom https://t.co/Dng7vgMXdZ

@michaelmina_lab @Paul_Wischmeyer @WesElyMD @LifeWithoutDiet @KhannaAshishCCM @Tweet_Nutrition @drdangayach @SapnaKmd @aartisarwal @chungk1031 @JaniceBakerRD @doctorinigo and moreover: https://t.co/pZMKmlbbKN

Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Lateral Flow Test #LFT Relative Sensitivity from Validation Studies to Absolute Sensitivity for Indicating Individuals Shedding Transmissible Virus https://t.co/ywLBVdbPRm

@OTVDesk Yes it can, LFTs identify a specific viral protein that are present from coronavirus. No protein, no covid. If used properly, LFTs have a sensitivity of above 80% https://t.co/oQNAuubgOt

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@jburnmurdoch @SebastianEPayne @michaelmina_lab Here is a link to the paper 👇 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@stxwxrs Link to study if interested: https://t.co/K7EbBiJZgb Hope that helps put your mind at ease a bit!

@kenp4ch1 They’re >80% effective at detecting any level of infection and >90% effective at detecting people most infectious (presumably symptomatic): https://t.co/M7Xii8mF1x

@DrBruceScott @DebbeeHutchins1 @ScotGovFM @JohnMasonMSP so..... has there been criticism of their methodology? Please share your expertise on how, precisely, their methodology is flawed. No doubt the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology will welcome your

@michaelmina_lab @Wikisteff @GovCanHealth @DFisman Thank you @michaelmina_lab I rely on your #RapidTests expertise as a researcher and epidemiologist & immunologist https://t.co/nCdGJLyysP

@bazmaz_ukulele Is the government following the science or using it as a thin veneer to make us all feel safer while we keep calm and carry on? Lateral flow seems reliable for those with symptoms and PCR is by far the better test for symptomless https://t

@CowdenTony @mikejtucker007 @AlynSmith Estimates vary between studies but rsrch in 1st link was at UCL and published in J of Clin Epidemiology https://t.co/YeDjtI985F Understand suspicion of govt spin but that's clin trial data with good provenance Also s

@carolineistanbu @michaelmina_lab https://t.co/VM1vLr3UNc

@mattjcan https://t.co/tjpK07YRK3

@bruce_arthur @Billius27 That’s why it has to be followed by *effective* measures against aerosol spread, and rapid tests, which are a *better* test of infectivity. https://t.co/ftlNB6UbFT

@chat_annie @BothaBoy @DonnellyStephen Incorrect 👇 I suggest you read our recent paper on sensitivity of lateral flow tests 👇 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@KaiMeinecke @c_drosten So schlecht sind sie nicht, v.a. in der infektiösen Phase ca. 90%. Dafür sehr viel praktikabler und schneller als PCR. Es gibt im Umgang mit Corona keine 100% Sicherheit. Gehört zum Besten, was wir haben, im Instrumentenkasten. htt

@Textolino @Andreas23912072 @MuckeSilvio @ElisabethKaleko @Unterkomplex21 @Karl_Lauterbach Das ursprüngliche "Gespräch" drehte sich um den Sinn einer 2G-Regelung. Zum Vergleich der "Tests" ein kleiner Beitrag. Selbstverständlich noch nicht abschließend g

Open Access UCL Research: Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Lateral Flow Test Relative Sensitivity from Validation Studies to Absolute Sensitivity for Indicating Individuals Shedding Transmissible Virus https://t.co/bdHU7X4Ufv

@glirarium @cjsnowdon To be fair to the guardian, this is the official JCVI position on transmission - bananas as it is, can't blame the leader writers too much for believing "the experts"! https://t.co/dmZScJCV4h

@SamFazeli8 You might want to send them our paper which demonstrates the sensitivity of LFT to infectious #COVID is very high. In other words, if you have two negative LFT and you have been in isolation for 10 days it is very unlikely that you are infecti

@TweetingGlance @BristOliver Very accurate https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

Interesting analysis #ODX #GDR #NCYT #MHC SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) sensitivity https://t.co/og22myyQrY

@ffeindadifyr @PaulMainwood @UKHSA Compare the following two articles https://t.co/oX8UiYORBs which suggests not so good and https://t.co/dRKZ3NDtLv which suggests better than thought. giving advice to patients has to change when the science changes

@HeymannCharles Right now the risk of a false +LFT is microscopic (so little need to follow up with PCR (unless for sequencing) Last week we demostrated the LFT are much more sensitive than previously thought https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@DrSimonHodes @annastorey78 @pkonline84 @deeksj @mgt @pash22 @petermbenglish Have you read our recent paper? https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@cfinnecy Yes, that is to avoid too many 'false positive' PCR tests. If you use PCR test in an asymptomatic population about 50% of the 'positive' results would come from individuals who are no longer infectious - for further info please see 👇 https://t.c

@SotonMax @samueljlovett https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Lateral Flow Test Relative Sensitivity from Validation Studies to Absolute Sensitivity for Indicating Individuals Shedding Transmissible Virus https://t.co/3ID3zKbQvz

@Vicktor1111 And yet up to date information give a different picture. https://t.co/OTywuNdOto You can read the entire peer reviewed report here: https://t.co/QNmW1mFWEq

If you want to read about the differences between PCR tests and lateral flow tests - this may be a good place to start. 6/6 👇 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@sarahcareyIRL I wonder if NPHT has read our recent paper? 👇 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

@F_I_Briest Da bei uns nur noch PCR-Tests gemacht werden, ist der Artikel vielleicht interessant. https://t.co/k8LKivEnBb

@NormTcdsb Much better than that because they are most accurate during the infectious period. Don’t get confused by the name of this paper; this is just what they call them in the UK. https://t.co/ftlNB6UbFT

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: @Dr2NisreenAlwan @profbuchan @michaelmina_lab and here is a link to the paper https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

Interesting paper on the accuracy of LFTs by @i_petersen @TheStatsGeek, @michaelmina_lab, @profbuchan, @ScienceShared

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @i_petersen: And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

And here is a link to the paper👇 9/9 https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@michaelmina_lab @tombarkas @Dr2NisreenAlwan @profbuchan It is, please see below: https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @adamhfinn: Already widely reported but definitely worth a look if you haven’t seen it already. This is the most effective tool we have…

@tombarkas @Dr2NisreenAlwan @profbuchan @michaelmina_lab https://t.co/gEhfh2h21d

@Dr2NisreenAlwan @profbuchan @michaelmina_lab and here is a link to the paper https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @dgurdasani1: No. A single intervention that reduces *infection* and transmission by 70%-80% is *highly effective*, even if the protecti…

@susanmsmith @ClaireByrneLive @morningireland @jenoconnell See also our recent paper on the sensitivity of antigen tests https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

@KkanCanada @michaelmina_lab @NightShiftMD @solutions_covid Yes, please read our paper https://t.co/qoY5lz1GBf

https://t.co/A3CZ6Krwze https://t.co/t788E67NX0 https://t.co/iDnptpjpGH https://t.co/quihKbSGa9

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @livuniHLS: Lateral flow tests detect most people at risk of transmitting Covid-19. A new formula shows that lateral flow tests (LFTs) a…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @RickByersLab: I'm thrilled to see this paper finally published: https://t.co/pKUrw1P9KB. @michaelmina_lab has been alluding to it in ta…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @RickByersLab: I'm thrilled to see this paper finally published: https://t.co/pKUrw1P9KB. @michaelmina_lab has been alluding to it in ta…

I'm thrilled to see this paper finally published: https://t.co/pKUrw1P9KB. @michaelmina_lab has been alluding to it in talks for months. It describes how even a perfect asymptomatic contagiousness test would only achieve ~50% PPA relative to PCR. 1/3

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @dgurdasani1: No. A single intervention that reduces *infection* and transmission by 70%-80% is *highly effective*, even if the protecti…

RT @adamhfinn: Already widely reported but definitely worth a look if you haven’t seen it already. This is the most effective tool we have…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

@sailorrooscout Ah wow! So this is all for the delta time period? Good corrective to some info being put out from the official British response I think..... https://t.co/EmMUupUvHf

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…

RT @adamhfinn: Already widely reported but definitely worth a look if you haven’t seen it already. This is the most effective tool we have…

RT @chrischirp: 11. We should demand no less tranparency from JCVI. Instead, we had (and still have) high profile members of JCVI warning…