I will post this here because it's interesting, could potentially drive down the virus, and is relevant to school openings. The last two make it relevant here:-)
The Medcram youtube video linked below describes a covid-19 test that can produce results within 10 minutes. It's also cheap it so can be given multiple times throughout the week. A Harvard professor on the medical staff there is advocating this test which could get schools open and running. I'm just a lay person but I don't see any problems with this - in fact it's very practical and hopefully we'll see it being used soon. It's worth the look in my opinion -
https://youtu.be/h7Sv_pS8MgQ
(07-22-2020 07:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ]I will post this here because it's interesting, could potentially drive down the virus, and is relevant to school openings. The last two make it relevant here:-)
The Medcram youtube video linked below describes a covid-19 test that can produce results within 10 minutes. It's also cheap it so can be given multiple times throughout the week. A Harvard professor on the medical staff there is advocating this test which could get schools open and running. I'm just a lay person but I don't see any problems with this - in fact it's very practical and hopefully we'll see it being used soon. It's worth the look in my opinion -
https://youtu.be/h7Sv_pS8MgQ
Why is this test logic not being pursued? It's simple, cheap, can be used in home & you get results within 10 mins. If you're positive, you stay home, if negative enjoy life. Just think of the possibilities. Employers, schools, businesses, social activities, sports could all use this approach.
My guess to why this will not be acceptable is that a self-test takes the bureaucrats out of the loop. Health departments and health care professionals would not want lay people administering tests and interpreting the results.
But, that's just my own biased opinion.
As mentioned in the video it's only about 50% accurate when compared to the PCR test, the gold standard. Also as mentioned, this is *not a random 50%* but more likely the top 50% that are infective. Those 50% at the top of the bell curve graphic used in the video. So it's not catching a lot of broken up virus (like the PCR test) but that doesn't matter because broken up virus doesn't infect others. The problem though is that there was a paper written early in the pandemic that disparaged this test as poor quality - before covid-19s window of infectivity was well understood. Now that its better understood when covid-19 is contagious and when it isn't this test looks like a very practical way to test for those who have covid-19. In fact, there was an opinion piece published in The New York Times about a week or two ago that suggested that this tests approval should now be fast-tracked by the FDA.
(07-23-2020 03:22 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ]As mentioned in the video it's only about 50% accurate when compared to the PCR test, the gold standard. Also as mentioned, this is *not a random 50%* but more likely the top 50% that are infective. Those 50% at the top of the bell curve graphic used in the video. So it's not catching a lot of broken up virus (like the PCR test) but that doesn't matter because broken up virus doesn't infect others. The problem though is that there was a paper written early in the pandemic that disparaged this test as poor quality - before covid-19s window of infectivity was well understood. Now that its better understood when covid-19 is contagious and when it isn't this test looks like a very practical way to test for those who have covid-19. In fact, there was an opinion piece published in The New York Times about a week or two ago that suggested that this tests approval should now be fast-tracked by the FDA.
Amazing, something the NYT & I can agree on!
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)covingtontiger Wrote: [ -> ]My guess to why this will not be acceptable is that a self-test takes the bureaucrats out of the loop. Health departments and health care professionals would not want lay people administering tests and interpreting the results.
But, that's just my own biased opinion.
Could be because it comes from a Youtube channel called MedCram. But that's none of my business.
Form letters provided by This Week in Virology that can be used to advocate for the FDA's approval of the quick, cheap, paper strip test for covid-19. There are a number of good examples and the first letter provides a number of links to supporting sources at it's end.
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/testing-letters/
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)covingtontiger Wrote: [ -> ]My guess to why this will not be acceptable is that a self-test takes the bureaucrats out of the loop. Health departments and health care professionals would not want lay people administering tests and interpreting the results.
But, that's just my own biased opinion.
You're right about it not being acceptable by the bureaucrats...
... but it will be so they don't have to be forced to relinquish control of the statistics.
The narrative now is all about "cases". Who cares if people aren't sick, as long as there are positive "cases" they can keep control of... everything.
(07-27-2020 08:56 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2020 01:53 PM)covingtontiger Wrote: [ -> ]My guess to why this will not be acceptable is that a self-test takes the bureaucrats out of the loop. Health departments and health care professionals would not want lay people administering tests and interpreting the results.
But, that's just my own biased opinion.
Could be because it comes from a Youtube channel called MedCram. But that's none of my business.
You do realize that virtually everyone associated with legitimate research, commerce & academia use YouTube as a media to video communicate their activities, conferences, etc. It's not just for music, funny or the weird.
(08-05-2020 06:52 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ]Dr. Michael Mina, Harvard epidemiologist - extremely compelling Harvard Magazine article on the advantages of cheap, rapid testing.
https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/covi...lic-health
Explains why speed and frequency of testing is more important than sensitivity. I haven't seen one argument against this and I've looked. ( I have to believe that this is more about fear among govt regulators.)
I've contacted my school district and my US representative. ***Links to form letters to help with these contacts are posted above.*** If you want to do something - this is how we open up until we get a vaccine.
(07-31-2020 11:16 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2020 01:53 PM)covingtontiger Wrote: [ -> ]My guess to why this will not be acceptable is that a self-test takes the bureaucrats out of the loop. Health departments and health care professionals would not want lay people administering tests and interpreting the results.
But, that's just my own biased opinion.
You're right about it not being acceptable by the bureaucrats...
... but it will be so they don't have to be forced to relinquish control of the statistics.
The narrative now is all about "cases". Who cares if people aren't sick, as long as there are positive "cases" they can keep control of... everything.
Gotcha. Busted. You are right....b/c bureaucrats gather around the campfire every night and try to figure how to screw everyone. Good grief...sounds a lot like the ppl who say big pharma and health care industry is hiding the "cure to cancer". I obviously must have missed that class in graduate school.
The test has a efficacy rate of under 50%. Would you feel comfortable driving away from a brake shop that only does a good job 50% of the time?
We have a lot of problems, but the "bureaucrats" are not one of them. Real problems are the ppl we elect to office and poor public healthcare policy...and good old fashioned politics.
BTW, I am for new diagnostics tests and this application has value, but nobody is hiding the truth or part of an organized conspiracy.
The break analogy really misses the mark. The cheap, paper strip antigen test that can be used everyday shows positive when a person is infectious. It's not a random 50%. Just 50% compared to the PCR gold standard test. But that test is used for diagnostics. That is, to determine whether you have covid-19 or you don't. The rapid, everyday test, is to determine whether you're actually infectious. The first determines your course of treatment in a hospital - the quick cheap test decides weather you stay at home or go to school or work. Not understanding this is missing the entire point. This podcast (linked) was posted yesterday on the internet --
https://youtu.be/cP-MHKU_cQE
This won't be used because, no one wants to hear about the overwhelming uninfected populas. That would fly in the face of the fear mongers and derail the current global attempt at wealth redistribution.
(08-07-2020 07:23 AM)Mestophalies Wrote: [ -> ]This won't be used because, no one wants to hear about the overwhelming uninfected populas. That would fly in the face of the fear mongers and derail the current global attempt at wealth redistribution.
This is just the test run. I'm sure they'll have something as strong as the Spanish Flu when they're ready to roll the martial law out.
Study - Characteristics of the spread of covid-19 show a minority of people who are contagious spread the virus. Most of the spread occurs during the pre-symptomatic phase, only for a couple of days, during super spreading events. (Hence the need for rapid, frequent, at home, testing) A typical super spreading event would be large crowds indoors.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20169920v2
YouTube - Harvard-educated Dr. Herrara, who made Forbes list of top 30 entrepreneurs under 30, talking about the need to change the fda's thinking the use of quick, cheap, paper strip tests. Walks through an example of how to use the test.
***Near the end of the video he talks about how South Korea use these tests. We see the results:-) Link below -***
https://youtu.be/qKM4MIrfr4k