A Third Solution • Hacker News Board

Re: A Third Solution

#531

Post by skosuri » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

skosuri wrote: post #530

new299 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, typo. I meant SPR (surface plasmon resonance). I’ve worked at a number of NGS platform companies developing new sequencing approaches. The problem is that sequencing is still expensive at the per-run level. It’s possible to be cost competitive with qPCR if you multiplex samples. But this isn’t ideal. It would be interesting to create a small/cheap sequencer which could be applied to point-of-care/at-home testi…

We've developed something NGS-based we call SwabSeq. You can find out more here: https://www.notion.so/Octant-SwabSeq-Testing-9eb80e793d7e463... You can get to $1/sample; but need >1000 samples/run at least to get to that cost level. Could run 10k/day without automation; likely a lot more (100k-1MM) with automation.

Oh, nvmd. I just saw you wanted a $1/run. Something ONT based perhaps.

Re: A Third Solution

#532

Post by krrrh » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 1:50 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #519

krrrh wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how naive our immune systems would become. It could have unpredictable effects, like increasing the rate of novel zoonotic disease transmissions. Maybe something like this is what set the stage for the common cold wiping out the aliens in War of the Worlds.

We would still be exposed to a wide variety of diseases even if there were no more common cold viruses floating around. The common cold viruses haven’t helped us deal with COVID-19 :(

> The common cold viruses haven’t helped us deal with COVID-19

We don’t actually know that yet.

Re: A Third Solution

#533

Post by hcknwscommenter » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #515

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way)" Huh? One goal is to flatten the curve so that we don't have exponential growth. Another is to flatten the curve so much that, even if might still be exponential growth, the growth is slow enough for our health care systems to absorb the peak.

One goal is to flatten the curve so that we don't have exponential growth The aim of mitigating measures is reducing the growth rate of the disease. But the mechanism of the disease is that you generally have a basic situation where X people infect at time t results R*X people at time t+1. That's fundamentally exponential process (even though you can extra factors, the process doesn't change 'till you get close to ha…

Sure. Yes. Of course you can flatten a lot and still wind up overwhelmed. Or, you can flatten enough that you don't.

Re: A Third Solution

#534

Post by projektfu » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #250

Paul, have you partnered with an epidemiologist to produce a paper on the method?

I guess the answer, as usual on these things, is no.

Re: A Third Solution

#535

Post by flaque » Wed, May 06, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

predxionbio wrote: post #298

flaque wrote: post #293

I may have missed this, but how physically is this test done? Is it “spit in a tube” or “swab the back of the throat”?

Hi there. We are developing a saliva (e.g., spit in tube) type test. There are a couple of reasons for this including: - supply chain issues with flocked nasal swabs and viral transport media - enable self-sampling limiting healthcare workers SARS-CoV-2 exposures and PPE utilization

Gotcha! Thank you!