Archimedes
Fire Watcher
Perhaps some promising news...
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020...returns-results-45-minutes-without-nasal-swab
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020...returns-results-45-minutes-without-nasal-swab
Covid-19 Saliva Test News
- Thread starter Archimedes
- Start date
GAJ
Well-known member
:thumbup
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
My understanding is that UC Boulder is going to be using the test on all of its students and staff, regardless of regulatory approval.
Snaggy
Well-known member
The press release seems to acknowledge that field sensitivity is going to be low, ie, high number of false negatives. Considering the test is older tech than the Abbott ID NOW test that's taking flak for a 15% false negative rate, I would expect something within a 25-45% range in this one.
Still, an insensitive test performed frequently may have advantages over a more sensitive test performed infrequently, or which requires trained staff to perform, costs more, or has a longer reporting time.
The problem with inaccurate tests isn't entirely a failure to create the perfect testing device or develop the perfect testing reagents. These things don't exist.
That's just the way it is in clinical medicine. Sometimes you use a screening test with a 70% sensitivity, followed by a confirmatory test with a 90% specificity, then start a therapy with an 80% efficacy. And even that might have a 20% incidence of significant adverse reactions. Actually, that's a good day. No wonder people don't think that highly of docs sometimes.
Still, an insensitive test performed frequently may have advantages over a more sensitive test performed infrequently, or which requires trained staff to perform, costs more, or has a longer reporting time.
The problem with inaccurate tests isn't entirely a failure to create the perfect testing device or develop the perfect testing reagents. These things don't exist.
That's just the way it is in clinical medicine. Sometimes you use a screening test with a 70% sensitivity, followed by a confirmatory test with a 90% specificity, then start a therapy with an 80% efficacy. And even that might have a 20% incidence of significant adverse reactions. Actually, that's a good day. No wonder people don't think that highly of docs sometimes.
Dr_SLO
Well-known member
This is indeed good news and is exactly what's needed to get the economy back on track; cheap, daily testing.
If you've not already heard it listen to Michael Mina explain how cheap, daily testing is going to solve a lot of issues if done appropriately. The interview was posted in this thread... https://bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10608337&postcount=1
Dr_SLO
Well-known member
Perhaps it's time to start firing letters off to those in governance. TWiV has posted examples they've received from listers to use as templates to send out... https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/testing-letters/