For Coronavirus Testing, the Nose May Not Always Be Best

 

Jillian Byrne                                                                                                                           1/15/22

Ippolito, Chemistry                                                                                                 Current Event 10

saliva-testing-coronavirus-omicron.html

Anthes, Emily. “For Coronavirus Testing, the Nose May Not Always Be Best.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Jan. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/saliva-testing-coronavirus-omicron.html.  

            I decided to review the article, “For Coronavirus Testing, the Nose May Not Always Be Best,” by Emily Anthes, published by the New York Times. Anthes’ article revolves around the newest Covid-19 inflicted debate: nasal or saliva-based testing. The well-researched article provides arguments for both sides, including perspectives and opinions from medical professionals and scientists on which testing method is more effective and will produce the most accurate results while providing the least amount of complications. The idea of saliva-based swabbing is being thrown into the mix as, according to Dr. Donald Milton, a respiratory viruses expert at the University of Maryland, Covid-19 shows up in your mouth and throat first. Saliva tests could identify infected people days earlier than a nasal test with this information in mind. Since 2020, saliva has been proven by dozens of studies to be an applicable sample for testing, says Dr. Wyllie, a microbiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. Precisely as the Omicron variant continues to infect, with 933,249 new cases on January 14th, saliva testing is gaining even more appeal, considering how quickly such variant replicates and spreads, according to a chair of the Covid-19 Sports and Society Working Group, Dr. Robby Sikka. However, there is still questionability if saliva is the overall winner. California Institute of Technology has conducted research showing that highly sensitive tests would likely detect infection from a saliva sample; however, less sensitive tests may not pick up results from saliva samples. Joseph DeRisis, a biochemist at the University of California, San Francisco, also explains that the mouth has many more variables within Anthes’ article. For example, what liquids were consumed before doing a saliva test, if Coke, the pH levels will be different and could impact the test results. Overall, saliva-based tests have their pros and cons, and only the future and more data will tell what their impact will be in the advancements of testing. 

            Saliva-based testing would ultimately be a game-changer, specifically how long one would have to quarantine after exposure. As mentioned above, testing via saliva would detect the virus days sooner than a nasal test. Currently, one has to quarantine for five days, and on the fifth day of quarantine test after close contact exposure. One must wait five days for a multitude of reasons. One reason is, the virus may not show up on a nasal test until five days after exposure. With the same idea in mind, if someone starts to develop Covid-19 symptoms and tests right away, their results may be inaccurate.

            Anthes’ articles were exceptionally well written; the argument for saliva testing was well presented. The reasons why saliva testing should be the primary testing method were paired with thorough and well-researched evidence from trustworthy sources. While this was very impressive, and the article itself did a tremendous job focusing on saliva testing, delivering the main idea to be crystal clear, the article could have been enhanced with more comparisons between saliva and nasal-based tests.