PCR (taken 6.5 hours after faint line on home rapid test) came back negative.
4 Likes
But doesnât the rapid test measure the amount of virus your body is generating to infect others? I skipped a farewell party I really REALLY wanted to go to because the Saturday after my Sunday diagnosis at urgent care, the rapid test showed a faint line. The next day it was still faint, and on Monday it was gone.
Letâs not confuse rapid tests with fast home tests, as many PCR tests administered by a health professional can be ârapidâ.
1 Like
To be more precise, the majority of home tests like those sent by the feds and the states are lateral flow antigen tests - these tests detect the presence of viral proteins. There is Cue Health that makes at home NAAT (nucleic acid amplification tests). Cue tests are not PCR but are also called âmolecular tests,â meaning they detect the genetic material of the virus (the technology they use if called LAMP). And there is PCR.
4 Likes
Yes. But in this case there was negative at-home antigen test after the faint-positive one, then neg PCR. As @ucbalumnus said upthread, that suggests minimal viral uptake with early suppression. Vaccine victory.
I would have another take: the first test was a false positive.
PCR is a more sensitive test than the DIY take-home varieties, and it is highly unlikely the no-name take-home test found something than the more-sensitive PCR did not a few hours later. (hard to conceive of the body going from positive on a not-so-sensitive test to a negative result on a highly sensitive test in that same afternoon.)
6 Likes
Agree.
Just reading about Moderna omicron-containing bivalent booster that could be ready by late summer. Article then mentioned that Moderna announced first updated vaccine in April. So was April one approved or if I go get Moderna booster now is it still the same as original as far as response against variants. And would it be better to wait for newest one in late summer?
The April announcement ( Moderna Announces Clinical Update on Bivalent COVID-19 Booster Platform ) was about some trial results. The new vaccine is not yet available. A booster gotten now will be the one targeted against the ancestral virus.
2 Likes
Thanks. Thatâs what I thought. Hoping the turnaround time is quick since would prefer some of these newer options.
I gave in and had mine last weekend. I was thinking along the same lines @scmom12
1 Like
The current booster does offer additional protection (compared to the first booster), even against the current variants. You could get that one now and then the newly formulated booster, which would most likely not be available until at least 4 months from now.
2 Likes
Me, tooâŠmostly because of the family wedding we are going to next month.
I read âlate summer,â which could be as late as past mid-September.
The FDAâs advisory panel will be meeting on June 28 to discuss a booster to target subvariants. At an earlier meeting (not sure if it was FDAâs or CDCâs advisory committee, because both groups have reps in both groups), it was mentioned that the govât should be giving direction to drug companies re developing boosters, and that the companies shouldnât be running the show.
Moderna is only now about to have a vaccine authorized for anyone under age 18 (FDA committee meets next week, when both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are expected to be approved for 18 months and up). So Iâm not sure they will meet the hopeful timeframe of âlate summerâ for a variant-specific booster.
And unless more covid funding is approved, there wonât be enough vaccine for everyoneâŠperhaps only enough for the 65 and above and immunosuppressed/compromised group (and then I suppose we can expect people to lie about their status to get the vaccine).
But then again there may not be a huge demand for it, anyway, considering how there are significant numbers of people who arenât getting the first and (if eligible) second boosters.
I also expect uptake of the vaccines for 18 months and up to be very low. It was very low for the 5-11 year-old group â 28% fully vaxxed, I think I remember. I think it will be even lower for the youngest age group.
1 Like
Please explain. Isnât in the best interest of private insurers to pay for a vaccine (as they are doing now, and as they do for âannualâ flu shots)? Or, do you mean federal funding for more R&D for variants?
1 Like
1 Like
Why does the government have to buy the vaccines? Why wouldnât they be treated like other vaccines that insurance companies cover or cover with a co-pay and providers like CVS purchase directly from the manufacturers?
And the FDA is once again the pinch point. No manufacturer will invest in production without approval.
âEven if the money comes through, itâs unclear if the vaccine makers can produce enough shots for the fall given how short the timeline is. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel told CNBC last week itâs a tight turnaround for any biotech company to have tens of millions of doses ready for the fall if they donât order supplies and start production before July .
âIf you look at the timelines, I donât think any manufacturer will be able to be ready in August to fill the channel with product,â Bancel told CNBCâs Meg Tirrell. The U.S. governmentâs last contract for Covid vaccines with Moderna ended in April.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told CNBC last week that the pharmaceutical giant would be ready to start manufacturing doses of its next-generation vaccine as soon as it receives guidance from the FDA.â
2 Likes
Why indeed. I was asking that very same question. I wonder what else is in the bill that is seeking funding for the vaccine? Hmmmmm.
3 Likes
The govt doesnât have to buy the covid vaccines, but did to accelerate the timing to get to market (there were probably other reasons too, including system wide cost savings)).
If the covid vaccines have to go thru normal channels, each manufacturer will have to negotiate a separate contract with all the middlemen (PBMs), health insurers, and states. Thatâs many companies and takes a good deal of time (and therefore money).
5 Likes
thatâs true, but only if you assume that the feds must pay 100% for all vaccines. The article ignores the fact that many private insurers are already paying for them, just as they pay for annual flu shots.
But for those private carriers that do not yet pay for a covid vax, the feds could easily mandate that they pay 100% of the vax (and recommended boosters) under the ACAâs Preventive services.
3 Likes
Under CARES see DOL guidance, covid vaccines per EUA must be covered by ACA plans,