[OutsiderFan]

I have no words. Please watch and tell me why anything said in this video is objectionable. 
https://youtu.be/h7Sv_pS8MgQ

[OutsiderFan]

I have no words. Please watch and tell me why anything said in this video is objectionable. 
https://youtu.be/h7Sv_pS8MgQ

[Hurlburt88]

I am not seeing anything objectionable.   Personally, both for my workplace and for schools I am VERY interested in rapid testing, even if some level of accuracy is sacrificed.

[Hurlburt88]

I am not seeing anything objectionable.   Personally, both for my workplace and for schools I am VERY interested in rapid testing, even if some level of accuracy is sacrificed.

[OutsiderFan]

I am not seeing anything objectionable.   Personally, both for my workplace and for schools I am VERY interested in rapid testing, even if some level of accuracy is sacrificed.

It's a no-brainer, right? Letting perfect testing be the enemy of good enough, is a prime example of the "can't do attitude" plaguing our society these days that I lamented in a previous post. How can the FDA not approve these lower sensitivity/immediate result, cheap tests that can be taken at home on a mass scale?

[OutsiderFan]

I am not seeing anything objectionable.   Personally, both for my workplace and for schools I am VERY interested in rapid testing, even if some level of accuracy is sacrificed.

It's a no-brainer, right? Letting perfect testing be the enemy of good enough, is a prime example of the "can't do attitude" plaguing our society these days that I lamented in a previous post. How can the FDA not approve these lower sensitivity/immediate result, cheap tests that can be taken at home on a mass scale?

[Goose]

There is nothing "objectionable" in this video, IMHO. There are lots of things that are conjectures and one that is borderline misleading. The first conjecture is that the viral load curve cited is universally applicable. You can get an "average" that has a high degree of variability. Not clear we have the data on this yet. More importantly, they cite one source for the idea that the period during which you can transmit the virus easily is short and corresponds only to the period of very large viral load. That may be true, but it is far from proven. They then jump to the conclusion that antigen presence is directly predictive of viral load. They don't say that in so many words, but comparing an antigen based test to the PCR test implies that relationship. We don't know for sure that is true. It may be, but it would need to be verified.
The borderline misleading action was comparing the Abbott Labs test which uses an Abbott machine and protocol to a notional unspecified test that is just a piece of paper you lick. What basis do they have for this comparison? They both detect antigens, therefore they are comparable? Big leap of faith. They also assert that this notional test could easily be made available in very large quantities. Why do they believe that?
They also conjecture that the reason the big companies aren't marketing these tests is because they are struggling to improve their sensitivity. They further conjecture this is because the FDA won't approve a low sensitivity test. I conjecture it is because some of the problems cited above will make presenting a compelling case to the FDA for approval difficult. Pharma needs to plug the holes, and that takes time.

All that said, you will notice the video was full of "could exist", "might", and "maybe". That is just fine. It is telling the truth. They didn't lie. Most good ideas start out with some holes that need to be filled. They have a rational, possible scenario for a cheap, simple test that may be a very big deal. Work needs to be done, but it could be a very useful approach. How long that will take remains to be seen, but that doesn't mean give up.
OTOH, don't count on it working and for sure don't rely on it working by September.

[Goose]

There is nothing "objectionable" in this video, IMHO. There are lots of things that are conjectures and one that is borderline misleading. The first conjecture is that the viral load curve cited is universally applicable. You can get an "average" that has a high degree of variability. Not clear we have the data on this yet. More importantly, they cite one source for the idea that the period during which you can transmit the virus easily is short and corresponds only to the period of very large viral load. That may be true, but it is far from proven. They then jump to the conclusion that antigen presence is directly predictive of viral load. They don't say that in so many words, but comparing an antigen based test to the PCR test implies that relationship. We don't know for sure that is true. It may be, but it would need to be verified.
The borderline misleading action was comparing the Abbott Labs test which uses an Abbott machine and protocol to a notional unspecified test that is just a piece of paper you lick. What basis do they have for this comparison? They both detect antigens, therefore they are comparable? Big leap of faith. They also assert that this notional test could easily be made available in very large quantities. Why do they believe that?
They also conjecture that the reason the big companies aren't marketing these tests is because they are struggling to improve their sensitivity. They further conjecture this is because the FDA won't approve a low sensitivity test. I conjecture it is because some of the problems cited above will make presenting a compelling case to the FDA for approval difficult. Pharma needs to plug the holes, and that takes time.

All that said, you will notice the video was full of "could exist", "might", and "maybe". That is just fine. It is telling the truth. They didn't lie. Most good ideas start out with some holes that need to be filled. They have a rational, possible scenario for a cheap, simple test that may be a very big deal. Work needs to be done, but it could be a very useful approach. How long that will take remains to be seen, but that doesn't mean give up.
OTOH, don't count on it working and for sure don't rely on it working by September.

[lex24]

Well, I know somebody that got tested 16 days ago. No results yet. So no matter the result - the test was useless.

[lex24]

Well, I know somebody that got tested 16 days ago. No results yet. So no matter the result - the test was useless.

[OutsiderFan]

It's really getting quite frustrating seeing the answers right in front of our faces go unrecognized, ignored, or dismissed. I get the "it might not be perfect or work perfectly" sentiment, but FFS, how can we not try something so damn cheap when it can be so damn available and give results so much faster, when speed is the absolute key?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1291443586718773248[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

It's really getting quite frustrating seeing the answers right in front of our faces go unrecognized, ignored, or dismissed. I get the "it might not be perfect or work perfectly" sentiment, but FFS, how can we not try something so damn cheap when it can be so damn available and give results so much faster, when speed is the absolute key?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1291443586718773248[/tweet]

[M T]

We already have a almost universally in-home now, cheap, reusable screening test but it gives too many false positives and false negatives:  A thermometer.  

The idea of a trivially cheap test procedure that can be done at home is appealing but I'm not aware of that test existing.  When it exists, and is cheap enough, and accurate & sensitive enough, then we can potentially be in better shape.   (But I bet the same people that are having backyard BBQs for groups would not be using such tests either.)

Personally, I'd rather have a cheap-enough sensor for the doors of businesses, like the anti-theft sensors, that identifies someone shedding virus as they walk by it.  I'd preferentially do business with such stores, knowing that the likelihood of encountering the virus was lower there.  I don't have to trust everyone that I encounter actually took & paid attention to the home test.

Heck, we don't even have a system in place to isolate those that have tested positive or to quarantine those that know they were exposed.  If I were working at my place of business, how would I know if the person that cleaned the area didn't leave virus around?  

I'm still waiting for my Jetson flying car.

[M T]

We already have a almost universally in-home now, cheap, reusable screening test but it gives too many false positives and false negatives:  A thermometer.  

The idea of a trivially cheap test procedure that can be done at home is appealing but I'm not aware of that test existing.  When it exists, and is cheap enough, and accurate & sensitive enough, then we can potentially be in better shape.   (But I bet the same people that are having backyard BBQs for groups would not be using such tests either.)

Personally, I'd rather have a cheap-enough sensor for the doors of businesses, like the anti-theft sensors, that identifies someone shedding virus as they walk by it.  I'd preferentially do business with such stores, knowing that the likelihood of encountering the virus was lower there.  I don't have to trust everyone that I encounter actually took & paid attention to the home test.

Heck, we don't even have a system in place to isolate those that have tested positive or to quarantine those that know they were exposed.  If I were working at my place of business, how would I know if the person that cleaned the area didn't leave virus around?  

I'm still waiting for my Jetson flying car.