A team of scientists worked around the clock to evaluate 14 antibody tests. A few worked as advertised. Most did not.
Published online April 24 in The new York Times; in print April 25
A team of scientists worked around the clock to evaluate 14 antibody tests. A few worked as advertised. Most did not.
Published online April 24 in The new York Times; in print April 25
Hi Apoorva – Just read your school reopening piece. I liked it. But I’m surprised none of the recent school opening coverage has dug into the possibility of increased risk stemming from the scenario in which schools alternate days or weeks on and off in-person school: students (esp young ones) whose parents cannot afford to stay home with them on “off days” from school are forced to go in to either formal or informal day care situations on “off days,” thereby expanding their exposure bubble, and often in day care settings where social distancing and other measures are not followed as well as they are in public schools. This means when those students return to school the next day or the next week, they are exposing all their school classmates to whoever they have been with on “off” days – and for the abovementioned children, that exposure bubble could be quite wide – especially if parents are cobbling together in-home and other forms of day care vs just one day care setting. Why is no one addressing this? Isn’t it risky to increase the number of people that kids are exposed to – and then bring them back to school soon after to expose the teachers and rest of their class? I have serious concerns about this for schools in which some or many parents cannot afford to/are unable stay home with their kids on off days but are not considered by the state to be “essential workers,” which face it, is many of us who need to pay rent/mortgages etc. Please explore this topic and give it some heat for school systems who seem to be so focused on 6 ft distance that they are ignoring this important factor.–