161–170 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The full quote does one extra thing, it implies that buying 100+ of these machines is totally expected.
Can these machines do anything else after we're done with Covid-19? I assume they can run other tests?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...marketing material? To the non-English world? I was literally just explaining a potentially helpful thought process to an English-speaking HN visitor dev who lists his(?) public key on his profile... not trying to produce marketing material for a French waiter or something. Are you sure you're not the one confused here rather than him?
I'm only trying to point out that Bosch may have specifically chosen the term 'accuracy' instead of 'specificity' or 'sensitivity', which don't translate easily outside of the Anglo-sphere, and in my opinion your thread is a valid example of why those two terms don't get used to market this device, which is what kicked this thread off in the first place ..
How is this better than Open qPCR which is 3-times less expensive and can give a test result in 1 hour instead of 2.5 hours?
Does 'Open' mean open source? Is there a free/open-source PCR design that DIYers can build themselves as long as they have the parts/resources?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you so much for explaining exponential growth to me. > Nobody has thousandfold more hospital beds and doctors ready, even less a million times more, which is the two month's growth. And in a few additional months, we will need more ICU beds than the number of atoms in the universe. Infection rates are already significant, there just aren't enough people to sustain two months' growth.
> Infection rates are already significant, there just aren't enough people to sustain two months' growth. This is wrong, of course there are enough people for this to grow for months even with no containment efforts. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
Again, these models are not robust to minor changes in their assumptions.
This is not rapid, only 10 tests/day, whilst the current overly slow sequencers can do 200/day. The accuracy of 5% is also worse than other faster sequencers of 3%. And compare that to modern ThermalFischer parallel PCR sequencers, which operate in realtime, 25 tests in parallel, for 2.500€. That's a factor of 1000. With 10 modern sequencers per city you could test 10.000 per day, eg with drive-in. https://www.thermo…
This test is made for use at the point of care, apparently all the operater has to do is insert a swab into a cartridge and put it into the device. [0] Comparing the throughput to fully automated systems used in testing labs [1] (look at this beast!) or qPCR machines in research labs [2] is missing the point, those require high investment or skilled staff. A test that can be run quickly by any doctor would be very us…
More important question is, do we trust them?
This is not rapid, only 10 tests/day, whilst the current overly slow sequencers can do 200/day. The accuracy of 5% is also worse than other faster sequencers of 3%. And compare that to modern ThermalFischer parallel PCR sequencers, which operate in realtime, 25 tests in parallel, for 2.500€. That's a factor of 1000. With 10 modern sequencers per city you could test 10.000 per day, eg with drive-in. https://www.thermo…
In addition to all information above this test is able to detect antibodies only not virus. So it is not recommended tests by WHO. This test is only useful in the later part of infection by the time which patient might have in contact with others thus spreading the disease. We need tests which can detect single of very few virus particle in the early stage of infection and that will help to quarantine the patient thu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The full quote is "A Bosch Vivalytic analyzer can perform up to ten tests in the space of 24 hours. This means it takes just 100 devices to evaluate up to 1,000 tests per day." which makes more sense, the 100 devices is just an example. But I agree that it's largely unnecessary, the initial "up to ten tests per day" would have been enough.
The full quote does one extra thing, it implies that buying 100+ of these machines is totally expected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"(...)the rapid test can detect a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection in patients in under two and a half hours" (...)With the tests currently in use, patients must usually wait one to two days for a result." Well i see here a big improvement...
> With the tests currently in use, patients must usually wait one to two days for a result. Is that because it takes 2 days for the test to complete, or because there a 2 day delay from backlog + administrative time?