Great News on the COVID testing front

[SCBills]

 

[NoSaint]

I feel like you should probably put some of the advantages in the original post of the thread 

 

[I'll put them here, how about that?

So here's an article with some background on the project.  It started with a Yale group headed by Anne Wylie showing that testing of saliva could be as or more sensitive than testing the brain-poking nasopharangeal swabs.  This is important because you kinda need someone else to poke your brain with one of those swabs, and that someone else wants PPE lest you snork virus all over them.  Whereas any of us fools can spit in a tube.

 

Here's a blurb about the project with more detail.  They built on the saliva sample results to develop a simpler test.

Advantage #1: No brain-poking special swab

Advantage #2: Extensive PPE not needed for worker collecting your sample

 

Next they decided to skip the CDC's cumbersome RNA extraction step.  They get around it by adding a protease to munch on the viral proteins then using a heat inactivation to melt the lipids on the viral particle and let the RNA out.

 

Advantage #3: No RNA extraction step, which requires its own set of reagents and for high throughput, its own special machine

 

Here's the paper

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167791v1

 

So what's the disadvantage?  Well, the CDC put the RNA extraction step there for a reason, and that reason if I'm not mistaken, was that the original Chinese test did not use RNA extraction and Chinese clinicians wound up using lung CT scans to diagnose covid-19 - the original test just missed that many cases.  Some said 50%.  Yikes. 

 

This group claims 94% comparison with the Thermo-Fisher covid-19 test.    If that's where it is, it's a boon

 

If it's more like the antigen test that's been being developed, 54-60%, it's .....well, IMO, a useful test needs to work better than flipping a coin.

 

Time will tell.

[BillsFanNC]

Interesting.  Although they acknowledge that due to the lack of an RNA extraction step that the sensitivity takes a hit, meaning more false negatives than traditional nucleic acid amplification tests. Fast and cheap are good though.

[Don Otreply]

Accuracy/reliability of any Covid-19 test is the only true measure, wouldn’t one think... 

[Reader]

6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Interesting.  Although they acknowledge that due to the lack of an RNA extraction step that the sensitivity takes a hit, meaning more false negatives than traditional nucleic acid amplification tests. Fast and cheap are good though.

 

And perhaps if it's fast and cheap enough they can authorize enough tests for any player who tests positive to rule out any false positives.

[billsfanmiami(oh)]

5 minutes ago, Reader said:

 

And perhaps if it's fast and cheap enough they can authorize enough tests for any player who tests positive to rule out any false positives.

I think false negatives are more of the problem..

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, Reader said:

 

And perhaps if it's fast and cheap enough they can authorize enough tests for any player who tests positive to rule out any false positives.

Without a vaccine, the ability to test rapidly and test a lot, is the best pathway to getting a season in.  

[Doc Brown]

The NBA has been the best of the four leagues of handling this virus so far.  This is great news for the NFL.

[Buddo]

Seems to be good news generally, especially how inexpensive it is. The issue, as with all testing, is how quickly can you get the results back. I've not read the article, but I've just seen something else about it, and in that it said it still needs to go off for testing.

 

Definitely a positive development, and hopefully, as it is inexpensive, they may be able to refine it to a quick result turnaround, i.e. within a few hours.

[DFT]

If you’ve never experienced the current test, you don’t know how welcomed this news is!

 

#brainpoke

Edited August 15, 2020 by DFT

[Patrick Duffy]

1 minute ago, DFT said:

If you’ve never experienced the current test, you don’t know how welcomed this news is!

 

#brainpoke

Exactly. They stick that q-tip into your thoughts

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, Buddo said:

Seems to be good news generally, especially how inexpensive it is. The issue, as with all testing, is how quickly can you get the results back. I've not read the article, but I've just seen something else about it, and in that it said it still needs to go off for testing.

 

Definitely a positive development, and hopefully, as it is inexpensive, they may be able to refine it to a quick result turnaround, i.e. within a few hours.

The article points out that local labs can get accredited so you can just run the samples over and get them tested.  
 

Depending on the timespan - could potentially allow for multiple tests on the day before a game, should anyone come back COVID+ to check for false positives. 

[Mr. WEO]

54 minutes ago, SCBills said:

The article points out that local labs can get accredited so you can just run the samples over and get them tested.  
 

Depending on the timespan - could potentially allow for multiple tests on the day before a game, should anyone come back COVID+ to check for false positives. 

 

Local labs are overwhelmed with current COVID tests--leading them to be sent out to large regional labs.  While easier for the person getting tested, not sure this will change the turnover time for people who are not in the NBA.

[Buftex]

1 hour ago, DFT said:

If you’ve never experienced the current test, you don’t know how welcomed this news is!

 

#brainpoke

I had a test a few weeks ago... I honestly didn't think it was too bad at all.

[Figster]

2 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

Accuracy/reliability of any Covid-19 test is the only true measure, wouldn’t one think... 

A more cost - effective,  rapid response, readily available and user friendly way of testing increases the overall success you would have in my opinion.  

Edited August 15, 2020 by Figster

[DFT]

6 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I had a test a few weeks ago... I honestly didn't think it was too bad at all.

There are two tests...   entry test is the nostrils and the “further” testing (for surgeries, etc.) they extend 5 inches and swirl in each nasal cavity.   The second is not pleasant, even for titans, bad boys and pounders of Genny Cream Ale.   

Edited August 15, 2020 by DFT

[Johnnycage46]

18 minutes ago, DFT said:

There are two tests...   entry test is the nostrils and the “further” testing (for surgeries, etc.) they extend 5 inches and swirl in each nasal cavity.   The second is not pleasant, even for titans, bad boys and pounders of Genny Cream Ale.   

 

I had a flu test a few years back and it was the exact same test (the swab of your brain)...they basically told me "right at the point where you can't take it anymore, is about when we're done"...and they were right lol.  I was about to lose my mind, then they said "ok all set".  It was NOT fun.

[DFT]

7 minutes ago, Johnnycage46 said:

 

I had a flu test a few years back and it was the exact same test (the swab of your brain)...they basically told me "right at the point where you can't take it anymore, is about when we're done"...and they were right lol.  I was about to lose my mind, then they said "ok all set".  It was NOT fun.

Yep!  Awful stuff.

[First Round Bust]

think how much better society will be in 2021 with test improvements, first draft of the vaccine and more awareness-preventative measures being taken, just gotta limp thru 2020...simply cant be any worse...

[Don Otreply]

43 minutes ago, Figster said:

A more cost - effective,  rapid response, readily available and user friendly way of testing increases the overall success you would have in my opinion.  

I was just thinking about the higher false negative results, cost and speed don’t mean much if the results are questionable. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for R&D and am glad they are working on various products, but the end product needs reliability first and foremost. Hopefully it gets refined to be equal with the better test. ?