16 ms·

Ten-Minute Coronavirus Test for $1

446 points by montalbano 7y ago

montalbano 7y ago
For another novel detection method which may be suitable for low-cost implementation see this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592173
guitarbill 7y ago
> test for the virus in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, with about 200 million people. > its saliva and finger-prick kit could be ready for sale by June for less than $1 apiece > Mologic and the Institut Pasteur have joint capacity to produce 8 million tests a year every little helps, and a low-cost test would obviously be a game-changer. but let's keep things in perspective and be realistic. it sounds quite hypothetical right now. there's no indication it works reliably yet.
- slowhand09 7y ago
  "masks and test kits". Epidemiologists say masks are practically useless against virus. The one that is effective with special training is useless without.
  - KptMarchewa 7y ago
    Epidemiologists say to stop buying masks only because there are not enough of them for the healthcare system and general population.
    - schuke 7y ago
      I thought it's more like there's no evidence that show massive use of masks by the public is effective.
      - jacobolus 7y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/ “Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193267 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193267 “We found that adherence to mask use significantly reduced the risk for ILI-associated infection” https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub4/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... “Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive [physical intervention] supportive measures.”
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        It's complicated. It doesn't stop you from getting the virus if you get droplets on your hands and rub your eyes / nose / mouth, which is one of the more common vectors. So I buy that there's no evidence it stops you from getting the disease. But it does limit the droplets you spray out as you're speaking / coughing, etc. So IMO it would be part of a general solution to limit how much you spread the disease. But self-quarantine is easier to be sure you're doing it right. Wearing N-95 masks effectively is harder than just strapping it on, and the untrained are likely to touch their faces more while they're doing so anyway. I'd be surprised if everyone wearing a fresh mask properly and washing their hands properly before touching the mask or face didn't put a major dent in the pandemic. But that's just not going to happen anyway so we can't tell. I think the big issue is supply for medical staff. There's a limited supply of legit masks. Medical staff need masks more. We need medical staff more. And the masks are more effective with training / other procedures in place. Other than that - if the masks didn't help you, medical staff wouldn't wear them.
        ehsankia 7y ago
        This is the right answer. As someone who has the virus, it absolutely helps you not spread it. As someone who doesn't, it may stop a few droplets from getting into your system right at that moment, but said droplets can still get on your hands, and 30m later when you scratch your nose, you'll still get infected. So yes, with supply being low, it's far more useful for infected people to not spread said droplets.
    - srcmap 7y ago
      Western countries need to spend more energy on mask productions. I heard the mask production automation lines cost $50K to $100 in China and TW. Now the price for machines and production materials are 5-10 times the normal. But once setup, 95% - 99% of the process is automated. There are zero pollution and it is neither labor nor capital intensive. Do need the logistic and abilities to source some raw materials. If setup, the next few months would be like printing $$$$. TW can make 10 millions masks per day now. China has production line making 110 millions mask per day. They were able mobilized the industries like war time - TW actually send enlist Army personnels to the factory to help out.
      - theseadroid 7y ago
        Yup. In mainland China they repurposed car assembly lines to mask production (there's not much car selling anyway). Western countries need to copy at least some of those measures.
        usrusr 7y ago
        Some Chinese manufacturing (or maybe a lot, I don't know) is still based on low wage advantages. Those factories are much easier to repurpose than factories in high wage countries that are optimized like race cars to maximize worker productivity. I wouldn't be surprised if a European car manufacturer would find it challenging to switch an engine factory from diesel to petrol with less than a year run up time.
      - ixwt 7y ago
        Would it be a bad idea for the government to have a reserve for healthcare workers for the next time this happens? To slowly sell off what is there, and to restock to create a buffer. And in a time of crisis, have a large amount that can only be bought by healthcare workers.
        ksenzee 7y ago
        You're describing the Strategic National Stockpile. Apparently it didn't get restocked after the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. https://abcnews.go.com/US/medical-providers-fearing-equipment-shortages-tap-secret-national/story?id=69583927 https://abcnews.go.com/US/medical-providers-fearing-equipmen...
    - DanBC 7y ago
      But they do also say that masks are difficult for people to use correctly, and if you're not using it correctly it'll increase your risk. slowhand09 has been unfairly downvoted, because they are factually correct. Epidemiologists are telling the public not to use masks because PPE needs training.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    They say that so we, the dumb animals, don't stockpile them like we do with toilet paper (can't find any for 2 weeks straight in my area of Berlin for example). Of course masks are useful, but they're more useful in hospitals / on health care workers' face, than on the average citizen which won't be in contact with the virus that much now that most of the world is starting to get locked down anyway
  - throwaway894345 7y ago
    Citation please? This seems like overt misinformation.
    - ProZsolt 7y ago
      They don't say it useless. They just don't recommend it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#protect https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#protect CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected. The use of facemasks also is crucial for health workers and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings (at home or in a health care facility). Only wear a mask if you are ill with COVID-19 symptoms (especially coughing) or looking after someone who may have COVID-19. Disposable face mask can only be used once. If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill then you are wasting a mask. There is a world-wide shortage of masks, so WHO urges people to use masks wisely. WHO advises rational use of medical masks to avoid unnecessary wastage of precious resources and mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks). The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to frequently clean your hands, cover your cough with the bend of elbow or tissue and maintain a distance of at least 1 meter (3 feet) from people who are coughing or sneezing. See basic protective measures against the new coronavirus for more information. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses Only wear a mask if you are ill with COVID-19 symptoms (especially coughing) or looking after someone who may have COVID-19. Disposable face mask can only be used once. If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill then you are wasting a mask. There is a world-wide shortage of masks, so WHO urges people to use masks wisely. WHO advises rational use of medical masks to avoid unnecessary wastage of precious resources and mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks). The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to frequently clean your hands, cover your cough with the bend of elbow or tissue and maintain a distance of at least 1 meter (3 feet) from people who are coughing or sneezing. See basic protective measures against the new coronavirus for more information. They don't say it useless, just they not recommend it
  - 13415 7y ago
    If they were practically useless, then health care workers wouldn't use them...
    - Merg 7y ago
      Surgical high-proof mask doctors and nurses use are pretty good against viruses, combined with googles of course. For normal person? They are mostly useless. Only for people, who are already sick, to stop them from spreading virus further. Wearing mask by healthy person doesn't make sense, because there is not much to stop viruses with coming in contact with your eyes. You are always a scratch away from bringing those viruses into your body, negating any benefit from mask. And most of mask, you can buy currently are not dense enough to capture viruses. OP is correct, unless you are sick or medical worker, you don't need mask. Don't buy them, hospitals need them much more than you. Is WHO [1] good enough source for you? [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
      - lukaslalinsky 7y ago
        The thing with this virus, you typically don't know you are infected until it's too late and you already infected a number of others. The goal with masks is not to protect you, but to protect the general population. Any basic mask will do for that purpose.
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Surely that's why it was crazy when ordinary, uninfected people, wanted to wear masks to tell them "well that won't help". I can't see how reducing transmission "isn't helping".
        mulmen 7y ago
        Because masks don’t reduce transmission. Communication on this has been very clear. Masks don’t help. Frequently washing hands, avoiding contact with others, keeping your surroundings clean, and not touching your face does help. Masks give a false sense of security and reduce supply for those that need them.
  - christkv 7y ago
    It takes you 5 min to learn how to put on and take off a n95 mask correctly. Even if you do it wrong you are still protecting other people against your potential infection.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Hmm, I think NHS courses last longer than that. The mask makers sell a [very expensive!] testing kit you can use to check the mask is fitted too, I gather.
      - christkv 7y ago
        According to Singapore Health https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoxpvDVo_NI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoxpvDVo_NI
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    > Epidemiologists say masks are practically useless against virus. // Have you seen any of them cite a research paper showing that? I haven't, I'm open to suggestions if anyone has one. Same thing with the "keeping schools open won't spread the virus" thing in the UK; lots of establishment scientists saying "trust us" but a dearth of papers detailing how the established beliefs are wrong that schools are prime transmission vectors for ARI (and closing them has helped to hinder influenza trasmissions in the past). Not being snarky; if you've got backing for "masks don't hinder viral spread" then lets see it.
    - ColanR 7y ago
      In general, masks are something that the sick person wears to prevent germ spread. Same idea as why surgeons wear them in the operating theater. The only kind of mask that's going to filter particulate matter out of the air (i.e., be effective against the virus for someone who is not infected) is something that has an airtight seal.
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Yes, so you agree, masks hinder transmission by, in your understanding as presented, decreasing the ability of sick people to infect healthy people. That is, masks reduce transmission.
- Rapzid 7y ago
  We are royally screwed if this thing hasn't played out by June.
  - zabana 7y ago
    How so ? Care to elaborate ?
    - notahacker 7y ago
      A lot of people will have died and our economies really aren't built for long term social isolation either.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - ehsankia 7y ago
    Depends how much we're able to slow it down. For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. It is still exponential but much slower. Hopefully the new measures put in the past week will slow it even more. At which point, once we have fast and reliable testing, we can actually start having people go out more and reduce the isolation, since we can count on better testing to stop the spread.
    - greenshackle2 7y ago
      In Canada, growth was slower for a while, but the number of (detected) cases has doubled twice in the past 5 days, which just about matches what we saw in Italy and the US once they hit 100 cases.
      - r00fus 7y ago
        Sounds like what happens when one of the criteria to get tested (which is expensive) is "having been in presence of known existing COVID-19 case". It's a symptom of massive under-testing and would be greatly alleviated by an inexpensive test.
- mars4rp 7y ago
  Decision Diagnostic a blood sugar test developer company is developing a handheld device and the cost of each test would be less than $7. They are hoping to deploy 200K unit by May. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/decn-updates-corona-virus-testing-141500342.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/decn-updates-corona-virus-tes...
- beef234 7y ago
  Would be interesting to use a technique like this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2019-02-origami-diagnostic-device-malaria.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2019-02-origami-d...
yread 7y ago
Here is a list of potential diagnostic tests for COVID-19 http://www.finddx.org/covid-19/ http://www.finddx.org/covid-19/
blueyes 7y ago
I'd just like to note that, while we should be conducting many more tests, we should also be aware of the danger of false positives, and the burden that places on individuals and systems. Some of these tests are just not very accurate, according to an MD I know.
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  Still better to have as one of many screening options
- lukifer 7y ago
  Always a concern, but under the present circumstances, a false positive (someone quarantines for two weeks who doesn't need it) is far better than a false negative (someone has false confidence in attending public places). Unlike other false positives that could lead to unneeded/harmful interventions (surgery, chemo), erring on the side of false positives would actually be desirable for COVID-19.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    I’d rather not be quarantined with a bunch of sick people for two weeks if I’m not actually sick. The risk of me getting the virus is much higher there than among the general populace. So I disagree that there are no downsides or risks for a false positive here. Especially as the disease has a chance to kill me.
    - jedberg 7y ago
      You quarantine at home.
      - xnyan 7y ago
        All the restaurants and bars of California and New York are closing or are closed and all the people that work there are hourly wage. How how long do you think they will still have homes? Not trying to be alarmist but I also don’t see how people making an hourly wage are going to continue living in their very expensive states without income.
baybal2 7y ago
And not a single detail on what they are... Antibody tests are more suitable for test strips, and work under 30m, but they need blood test. Few companies in China are already marketing 30 minute PCR systems. One from Xiamen, another from Nansha.
- mbreese 7y ago
  > Using technology from home pregnancy and malaria tests, its saliva and finger-prick kit could be ready for sale by June for less than $1 apiece. Based on this, I'd guess they are talking about an antibody based test. There are point of care Influenza tests that work on the same principle. Probably not as sensitive as a PCR test, but definitely cheaper and faster -- if you can get a good antibody.
- projektfu 7y ago
  A direct antigen test can work if enough virus is shed. For example, there is a coronavirus fecal antigen test for dogs. The technique is ELISA, like for antibody tests.
- kylebenzle 7y ago
  Agree, tried to figure out how they got an rt-pcr machine that small, then realized the whole article is bullshit. I guess we are in for a lot of this nonsense.
  - mmmrtl 7y ago
    It's real tech - miniaturization with microfluidics allows shorter cycles -> faster results. But it's not clear whether any of these companies are yet making enough machines to help, or if it's just PR. Probably the latter. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/121312 https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/121312
leggomylibro 7y ago
So, how does the PCR-based testing work? Is it just the usual gene amplification steps? * Get DNA out of cells and unwrapped from their histones. * Cleave the DNA sample with restriction enzymes at boundary sites which should mark the start/end of a stretch of viral DNA. * Amplify the sample with PCR, using primers which match stretches of viral DNA. * Run a gel electrophoresis and look for a mass of DNA that matches the expected size of the stretch of viral DNA. Is that how things work, or are these kinds of diagnostics done differently?
- mbreese 7y ago
  It's an RNA virus, so you start by isolating RNA and then using a reverse transcription reaction to make cDNA from the RNA. Then you use viral-specific primers in a traditional PCR. Most of the tests that I've seen presented have then be real-time qPCR tests as opposed to gels, but for the most part, you're not far off. Also, restriction digests aren't required. Note: I haven't seen any of the protocols, just what I've been able to learn from press reports. Edit: Here's a link to the CDC's panel protocol: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download And to add Wikipedia's page on real-time PCR (not to be confused with RT-PCR, which is also used here): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_rea... . However, the crux of it is that the reaction contains a chemical that fluoresces in the presence of double-stranded DNA. As the PCR reaction progresses, if there is a valid template in the original mixture (i.e. if there is virus present), then there will be a detectable amount of DNA present after a number of PCR cycles. The lower the number of PCR cycles required to detect this fluorescence, the more viral RNA was present in the initial sample.
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Neat, thanks - it's amazing how quickly sequencing technologies have evolved.
    - mbreese 7y ago
      This isn't sequencing... you'd use sequencing to identify novel mutations or strains of the virus. This is a set of known PCR primers that amplify the virus's RNA. You could (in theory) also use a similar approach to identify specific strains of the virus, but this shouldn't be the priority at the moment. While you could have an assay that used sequencing, it wouldn't be nearly as fast or cost efficient.
DennisP 7y ago
This sounds like something we could really use in the U.S., too.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
What is enabling them to be the only people able to develop this far better test? Is the rest of the world unaware how home pregnancy and malaria tests work? If this was worth reporting on, there should be some kind of data showing how effective and cheap the test is when compared to the competition. I wonder what led Bloimberg and other financial news to pick this story up.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "What is enabling them to be the only people able to develop this far better test?" They're far from the only ones who've developed a far better test. Without specifically looking for them, since the outbreak began I've seen 4 or 5 reports of different companies developing far better tests. Unfortunately, I don't know if any of them have actually been put in to use, or what the obstacles to doing so are.
  - giarc 7y ago
    If you are a company that wants to sell a test, you will definitely say it's a "far better test". Whether it actually is a better test is a much different story.
  - VectorLock 7y ago
    I think the biggest obstacle is actually doing the testing of the tests to see if they're far better. Putting an ineffective or highly false positive/negative test out there could do more harm than good.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >I've seen 4 or 5 reports of different companies developing far better tests. Were any of the reports more detailed than "hey, we developed a better test. Give us money."
uptown 7y ago
Assuming tests aren't available -- is there nay prescribed care one can provide to others or do for ones-self if they contract the virus? I realize some conditions may worsen to the point that you'd require medical attention --- but what's the best course of action assuming that professional care is unavailable?
- fma 7y ago
  I feel like a question like this is better served doing a Google search and finding results from reputable sources...rather than asking a question on HN. Having said that, Coronavirus is consider a repository illness...so you'd probably perform the same home treatment as any other respiratory illness.
  - rory096 7y ago
    >you'd probably perform the same home treatment as any other respiratory illness. Notably, you should not take ibuprofen or other NSAIDS. Stick to acetaminophen/paracetamol instead. Guidance from France's health minister: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/anti-inflammatory-drugs-may-aggravate-coronavirus-infection https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/anti-inflammat... https://twitter.com/olivierveran/status/1238776545398923264 https://twitter.com/olivierveran/status/1238776545398923264
    - velosol 7y ago
      This is good advice generally, especially for severe infections like COVID-19 but there's little evidence _specific_ to COVID-19 and a contraindication with NSAIDs. The Snopes [1] article covers the general gist although there is an early report around that the minister likely read and passed on in the form of a tweet. Research is changing constantly right now so evidence may or may not show NSAIDs contraindicated with greater risk than other infections. [1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-nsaids-ibuprofen/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-nsaids-ibuprofen/
- swebs 7y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/st... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/caring-for-yourself-at-home.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/ca...
the_arun 7y ago
In the same lines - Apple Watch or Samsung watch sensing it through sensors would be so cool. I'm not a doc, so don't know the practicality of it
- nomel 7y ago
  They have some LEDs that shine light into your skin. You're not detecting a specific pathogen by shining UR and visible lights.
baq 7y ago
it's either that and containment South Korea style or total lockdown China style. too much risk to be in between, though some were trying.
bugzz 7y ago
Why are flu tests so much slower and more expensive?
- kube-system 7y ago
  Probably because "the flu" is hundreds of different viruses and the entire world is not currently dumping massive amounts of resources behind developing them. Then again, the rapid flu test only takes about 5 to 20 more minutes than this, and doesn't really cost much more than any routine diagnostic.
- shard 7y ago
  I'm sure the are different types of flu tests, but the last one I had at the doctor's office about 2 years ago was two swabs of my nose, which the doctor put into a test kit, and a few minutes' wait for the results to develop in the kit. No idea how much it cost, though.
mehrdadn 7y ago
What's the current best false negative rate of any coronavirus test?
sdiq 7y ago
Cheap and fast screening tests for a number of health conditions are commonly available. However the sensitivy and specificity of these tests tend to be lower than the PCR, for example. Once a person tests positive in the first screening test, a second confirmatory tests is then ordered. This test should thus be one such fast screening test and would certainly help in a place like Africa.
afterburner 7y ago
How many can they make?
- bolasanibk 7y ago
  From the article: Mologic and the Institut Pasteur have joint capacity to produce 8 million tests a year
rhizome 7y ago
A test for $1 can be a test for free.
- apk-d 7y ago
  A test for $1 can be afforded by anyone.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    I'd say "can be afforded by the World for everyone". Sure, the average GNI (gross nat. income) for the poorest countries is about $2 (USD) per day, but affordability is more complex. However, if we taxed the World, and paid according to ability of nations to pay ... I mean USA could probably pay it for everyone and only have to not build an aircraft carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_... says that is $12B, money to spare!). [Yes, finance isn't that easy, the knock on effects would make the cost possibly greater, maybe less(!)?]
    - apk-d 7y ago
      The logistics of getting goods such as food and medicine into third world countries have hardly anything to do with their manufacturing price. Even once you get them there, distribution is a nightmare. Obviously I'm not referring to countries with no actual economy to speak of.
      - rhizome 7y ago
        The "$1" in a $1 test has very little to do with manufacturing costs, too.
aliljet 7y ago
These kinds of engineering/science solutions to a hard problem are the bread and butter of a community like this. Where can engineers pool their resourcing and work together to assist in the fight?
salimmadjd 7y ago
From their website [0] my guess is their test is ELISA [1] based or similar method of detecting if the human body has had an immune reaction to the virus in the amount that is detectable. Where as the more expensive test is PCR based [2] that requires the heating-cooling cycles and machines to do it. The PCR-based test basically take the RNA of the virus converts it to DNA and then doubles the amount of DNA every heating cycle. Assuming we are talking about real-time PCR the PCR cycle of double is what takes time. I have not seen the data on the incubation period and the immune response, to know if these immune detection tests will be able to provide early detection for asymptomatic case . It's probably for symptomatic cases and wanted to ensure it's not flu or another infection and it's COVID-19. This is not to say the test is useless. It actually great inexpensive way of testing the population with symptoms and using more expensive and timely test for early detection. Reducing the overall burden. worth mentioning are other initiatives that are focusing on cheaper and faster PCR process (though with potential of higher false negative and positive results) [3] [0]https://mologic.co.uk https://mologic.co.uk [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_rea... [3] https://twitter.com/JMRothberg/status/1238115465467133959 https://twitter.com/JMRothberg/status/1238115465467133959
- entee 7y ago
  RT-qPCR is indeed the common detection method right now. RT (reverse transcriptase) converts RNA->DNA, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) doubles DNA by replicating it over and over in heat cool cycles. To a first approximation, you get 2^n copies of the RNA (it was converted to DNA) where n is the number of heat cool cycles. By adding a fluorescent tracer, you get the q (Quantitative), so you can see how much DNA exists at each cycle. You can then fit a curve and see how much RNA (via its DNA complement) existed in the original sample. It's not actually that slow, you can do this in a couple hours if you have the right setup. The bottleneck is you do need time for the heating and cooling cycles. You also need to extract RNA from the sample first, which could be another bottleneck. I'm not totally clear on the relative cost, a good ELISA would eventually be cheaper, but qPCR itself isn't very expensive. The benefit is that qPCR is extremely sensitive, you WILL see if there is virus in the bloodstream. You can even use swabs and avoid blood altogether. Also, the minute you have a viral genome, you can make a qPCR test, you just need the sequence. That said, if you cleared the infection you will be negative under RT-qPCR. An ELISA works differently. In this case you would present a part of the viral protein, the patient's antibodies will bind to it, and you then use another antibody (this one is conjugated to some sort of readout method, fluorescent or biochemical) which binds to generic human antibody. Now you have a stack: viral protein <> patient antibody <> readout antibody. You read out the signal provided by your readout, usually some sort of colorimetric thing (see home pregnancy tests, also an ELISA, slightly different configuration though). This works fast, can be manufactured in bulk, BUT requires do you have a protein(s) (in this case the viral protein) that is/are universally recognized by patient antibodies. It's a little trickier to develop. You also need to produce that protein at scale which can take a little time as well. Major benefit: with a good ELISA you WILL see not only whether someone IS infected but whether someone WAS infected for some period after illness regardless of symptoms. This is essentially the only way you'll get a really good number for baseline infection rate. That said, you likely actually need a blood draw. In short, we need both, we probably could do a lot better than we are doing with qPCR in testing volumes and we could also really use an ELISA. Source: PhD biochemist, have personally run these assays in various forms. EDIT: Acronym expansion, source
Markoff 7y ago
by June when it will be available I'll be either dead or immune, same with most of the population
amelius 7y ago
Wouldn't a far less specific test do the trick as well? If we had a cheap test that tells us whether we have some kind of illness, corona-flu included, then I'd say that would be tremendously useful.
asiachick 7y ago
$1 would be nice. Some company in Japan is selling kits $250 for a 10 test kit https://monoist.atmarkit.co.jp/mn/articles/2003/13/news055.html https://monoist.atmarkit.co.jp/mn/articles/2003/13/news055.h... Google Translate Translation https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmonoist.atmarkit.co.jp%2Fmn%2Farticles%2F2003%2F13%2Fnews055.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
nlh 7y ago
Someone sent me this link recently. Can anyone provide some color on what's actually being sold here? Is this just fraud or are there cheap tests already available in China? https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=covid-19+test https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product...
Amygaz 7y ago
1st, SARS-CoV2 ELISA already exists. 2nd, the CDC did compare RT-PCR vs ELISA SARS-CoV back in 2005, and ELISA performed really poorly, and that was for acute cases. So, that is why we should stick with RT.
leemailll 7y ago
It’s relatively easy to develop a detection method, however the most important thing for any detection is the false negative rate, considering current situation. If the false negative rate is high, such a test might encourage spread of the virus. Some Chinese company already developed antibody-based detection method a while ago, But never saw they change the detection method in clinic. Elisa use the same basic principle as an antibody based test.
pdm55 7y ago
Discussion re new simpler antibody test https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-antibodies-could-show-true-scale-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-anti...

446 points by montalbano 7y ago

For another novel detection method which may be suitable for low-cost implementation see this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22592173

guitarbill 7y ago

> test for the virus in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, with about 200 million people. > its saliva and finger-prick kit could be ready for sale by June for less than $1 apiece > Mologic and the Institut Pasteur have joint capacity to produce 8 million tests a year every little helps, and a low-cost test would obviously be a game-changer. but let's keep things in perspective and be realistic. it sounds quite hypothetical right now. there's no indication it works reliably yet.

slowhand09 7y ago
"masks and test kits". Epidemiologists say masks are practically useless against virus. The one that is effective with special training is useless without.
- KptMarchewa 7y ago
  Epidemiologists say to stop buying masks only because there are not enough of them for the healthcare system and general population.
  - schuke 7y ago
    I thought it's more like there's no evidence that show massive use of masks by the public is effective.
    - jacobolus 7y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/ “Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193267 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193267 “We found that adherence to mask use significantly reduced the risk for ILI-associated infection” https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub4/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... “Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive [physical intervention] supportive measures.”
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      It's complicated. It doesn't stop you from getting the virus if you get droplets on your hands and rub your eyes / nose / mouth, which is one of the more common vectors. So I buy that there's no evidence it stops you from getting the disease. But it does limit the droplets you spray out as you're speaking / coughing, etc. So IMO it would be part of a general solution to limit how much you spread the disease. But self-quarantine is easier to be sure you're doing it right. Wearing N-95 masks effectively is harder than just strapping it on, and the untrained are likely to touch their faces more while they're doing so anyway. I'd be surprised if everyone wearing a fresh mask properly and washing their hands properly before touching the mask or face didn't put a major dent in the pandemic. But that's just not going to happen anyway so we can't tell. I think the big issue is supply for medical staff. There's a limited supply of legit masks. Medical staff need masks more. We need medical staff more. And the masks are more effective with training / other procedures in place. Other than that - if the masks didn't help you, medical staff wouldn't wear them.
      - ehsankia 7y ago
        This is the right answer. As someone who has the virus, it absolutely helps you not spread it. As someone who doesn't, it may stop a few droplets from getting into your system right at that moment, but said droplets can still get on your hands, and 30m later when you scratch your nose, you'll still get infected. So yes, with supply being low, it's far more useful for infected people to not spread said droplets.
  - srcmap 7y ago
    Western countries need to spend more energy on mask productions. I heard the mask production automation lines cost $50K to $100 in China and TW. Now the price for machines and production materials are 5-10 times the normal. But once setup, 95% - 99% of the process is automated. There are zero pollution and it is neither labor nor capital intensive. Do need the logistic and abilities to source some raw materials. If setup, the next few months would be like printing $$$$. TW can make 10 millions masks per day now. China has production line making 110 millions mask per day. They were able mobilized the industries like war time - TW actually send enlist Army personnels to the factory to help out.
    - theseadroid 7y ago
      Yup. In mainland China they repurposed car assembly lines to mask production (there's not much car selling anyway). Western countries need to copy at least some of those measures.
      - usrusr 7y ago
        Some Chinese manufacturing (or maybe a lot, I don't know) is still based on low wage advantages. Those factories are much easier to repurpose than factories in high wage countries that are optimized like race cars to maximize worker productivity. I wouldn't be surprised if a European car manufacturer would find it challenging to switch an engine factory from diesel to petrol with less than a year run up time.
    - ixwt 7y ago
      Would it be a bad idea for the government to have a reserve for healthcare workers for the next time this happens? To slowly sell off what is there, and to restock to create a buffer. And in a time of crisis, have a large amount that can only be bought by healthcare workers.
      - ksenzee 7y ago
        You're describing the Strategic National Stockpile. Apparently it didn't get restocked after the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. https://abcnews.go.com/US/medical-providers-fearing-equipment-shortages-tap-secret-national/story?id=69583927 https://abcnews.go.com/US/medical-providers-fearing-equipmen...
  - DanBC 7y ago
    But they do also say that masks are difficult for people to use correctly, and if you're not using it correctly it'll increase your risk. slowhand09 has been unfairly downvoted, because they are factually correct. Epidemiologists are telling the public not to use masks because PPE needs training.
- lm28469 7y ago
  They say that so we, the dumb animals, don't stockpile them like we do with toilet paper (can't find any for 2 weeks straight in my area of Berlin for example). Of course masks are useful, but they're more useful in hospitals / on health care workers' face, than on the average citizen which won't be in contact with the virus that much now that most of the world is starting to get locked down anyway
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  Citation please? This seems like overt misinformation.
  - ProZsolt 7y ago
    They don't say it useless. They just don't recommend it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#protect https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#protect CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected. The use of facemasks also is crucial for health workers and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings (at home or in a health care facility). Only wear a mask if you are ill with COVID-19 symptoms (especially coughing) or looking after someone who may have COVID-19. Disposable face mask can only be used once. If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill then you are wasting a mask. There is a world-wide shortage of masks, so WHO urges people to use masks wisely. WHO advises rational use of medical masks to avoid unnecessary wastage of precious resources and mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks). The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to frequently clean your hands, cover your cough with the bend of elbow or tissue and maintain a distance of at least 1 meter (3 feet) from people who are coughing or sneezing. See basic protective measures against the new coronavirus for more information. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses Only wear a mask if you are ill with COVID-19 symptoms (especially coughing) or looking after someone who may have COVID-19. Disposable face mask can only be used once. If you are not ill or looking after someone who is ill then you are wasting a mask. There is a world-wide shortage of masks, so WHO urges people to use masks wisely. WHO advises rational use of medical masks to avoid unnecessary wastage of precious resources and mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks). The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to frequently clean your hands, cover your cough with the bend of elbow or tissue and maintain a distance of at least 1 meter (3 feet) from people who are coughing or sneezing. See basic protective measures against the new coronavirus for more information. They don't say it useless, just they not recommend it
- 13415 7y ago
  If they were practically useless, then health care workers wouldn't use them...
  - Merg 7y ago
    Surgical high-proof mask doctors and nurses use are pretty good against viruses, combined with googles of course. For normal person? They are mostly useless. Only for people, who are already sick, to stop them from spreading virus further. Wearing mask by healthy person doesn't make sense, because there is not much to stop viruses with coming in contact with your eyes. You are always a scratch away from bringing those viruses into your body, negating any benefit from mask. And most of mask, you can buy currently are not dense enough to capture viruses. OP is correct, unless you are sick or medical worker, you don't need mask. Don't buy them, hospitals need them much more than you. Is WHO [1] good enough source for you? [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
    - lukaslalinsky 7y ago
      The thing with this virus, you typically don't know you are infected until it's too late and you already infected a number of others. The goal with masks is not to protect you, but to protect the general population. Any basic mask will do for that purpose.
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Surely that's why it was crazy when ordinary, uninfected people, wanted to wear masks to tell them "well that won't help". I can't see how reducing transmission "isn't helping".
        mulmen 7y ago
        Because masks don’t reduce transmission. Communication on this has been very clear. Masks don’t help. Frequently washing hands, avoiding contact with others, keeping your surroundings clean, and not touching your face does help. Masks give a false sense of security and reduce supply for those that need them.
- christkv 7y ago
  It takes you 5 min to learn how to put on and take off a n95 mask correctly. Even if you do it wrong you are still protecting other people against your potential infection.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Hmm, I think NHS courses last longer than that. The mask makers sell a [very expensive!] testing kit you can use to check the mask is fitted too, I gather.
    - christkv 7y ago
      According to Singapore Health https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoxpvDVo_NI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoxpvDVo_NI
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  > Epidemiologists say masks are practically useless against virus. // Have you seen any of them cite a research paper showing that? I haven't, I'm open to suggestions if anyone has one. Same thing with the "keeping schools open won't spread the virus" thing in the UK; lots of establishment scientists saying "trust us" but a dearth of papers detailing how the established beliefs are wrong that schools are prime transmission vectors for ARI (and closing them has helped to hinder influenza trasmissions in the past). Not being snarky; if you've got backing for "masks don't hinder viral spread" then lets see it.
  - ColanR 7y ago
    In general, masks are something that the sick person wears to prevent germ spread. Same idea as why surgeons wear them in the operating theater. The only kind of mask that's going to filter particulate matter out of the air (i.e., be effective against the virus for someone who is not infected) is something that has an airtight seal.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Yes, so you agree, masks hinder transmission by, in your understanding as presented, decreasing the ability of sick people to infect healthy people. That is, masks reduce transmission.
Rapzid 7y ago
We are royally screwed if this thing hasn't played out by June.
- zabana 7y ago
  How so ? Care to elaborate ?
  - notahacker 7y ago
    A lot of people will have died and our economies really aren't built for long term social isolation either.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- ehsankia 7y ago
  Depends how much we're able to slow it down. For example Canada had first case in January, and 2 months later is only up to ~500 confirmed cases. It is still exponential but much slower. Hopefully the new measures put in the past week will slow it even more. At which point, once we have fast and reliable testing, we can actually start having people go out more and reduce the isolation, since we can count on better testing to stop the spread.
  - greenshackle2 7y ago
    In Canada, growth was slower for a while, but the number of (detected) cases has doubled twice in the past 5 days, which just about matches what we saw in Italy and the US once they hit 100 cases.
    - r00fus 7y ago
      Sounds like what happens when one of the criteria to get tested (which is expensive) is "having been in presence of known existing COVID-19 case". It's a symptom of massive under-testing and would be greatly alleviated by an inexpensive test.
mars4rp 7y ago
Decision Diagnostic a blood sugar test developer company is developing a handheld device and the cost of each test would be less than $7. They are hoping to deploy 200K unit by May. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/decn-updates-corona-virus-testing-141500342.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/decn-updates-corona-virus-tes...
beef234 7y ago
Would be interesting to use a technique like this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2019-02-origami-diagnostic-device-malaria.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2019-02-origami-d...

yread 7y ago

Here is a list of potential diagnostic tests for COVID-19 http://www.finddx.org/covid-19/ http://www.finddx.org/covid-19/

blueyes 7y ago

I'd just like to note that, while we should be conducting many more tests, we should also be aware of the danger of false positives, and the burden that places on individuals and systems. Some of these tests are just not very accurate, according to an MD I know.

aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Still better to have as one of many screening options
lukifer 7y ago
Always a concern, but under the present circumstances, a false positive (someone quarantines for two weeks who doesn't need it) is far better than a false negative (someone has false confidence in attending public places). Unlike other false positives that could lead to unneeded/harmful interventions (surgery, chemo), erring on the side of false positives would actually be desirable for COVID-19.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  I’d rather not be quarantined with a bunch of sick people for two weeks if I’m not actually sick. The risk of me getting the virus is much higher there than among the general populace. So I disagree that there are no downsides or risks for a false positive here. Especially as the disease has a chance to kill me.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    You quarantine at home.
    - xnyan 7y ago
      All the restaurants and bars of California and New York are closing or are closed and all the people that work there are hourly wage. How how long do you think they will still have homes? Not trying to be alarmist but I also don’t see how people making an hourly wage are going to continue living in their very expensive states without income.

baybal2 7y ago

And not a single detail on what they are... Antibody tests are more suitable for test strips, and work under 30m, but they need blood test. Few companies in China are already marketing 30 minute PCR systems. One from Xiamen, another from Nansha.

mbreese 7y ago
> Using technology from home pregnancy and malaria tests, its saliva and finger-prick kit could be ready for sale by June for less than $1 apiece. Based on this, I'd guess they are talking about an antibody based test. There are point of care Influenza tests that work on the same principle. Probably not as sensitive as a PCR test, but definitely cheaper and faster -- if you can get a good antibody.
projektfu 7y ago
A direct antigen test can work if enough virus is shed. For example, there is a coronavirus fecal antigen test for dogs. The technique is ELISA, like for antibody tests.
kylebenzle 7y ago
Agree, tried to figure out how they got an rt-pcr machine that small, then realized the whole article is bullshit. I guess we are in for a lot of this nonsense.
- mmmrtl 7y ago
  It's real tech - miniaturization with microfluidics allows shorter cycles -> faster results. But it's not clear whether any of these companies are yet making enough machines to help, or if it's just PR. Probably the latter. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/121312 https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/121312

leggomylibro 7y ago

So, how does the PCR-based testing work? Is it just the usual gene amplification steps? * Get DNA out of cells and unwrapped from their histones. * Cleave the DNA sample with restriction enzymes at boundary sites which should mark the start/end of a stretch of viral DNA. * Amplify the sample with PCR, using primers which match stretches of viral DNA. * Run a gel electrophoresis and look for a mass of DNA that matches the expected size of the stretch of viral DNA. Is that how things work, or are these kinds of diagnostics done differently?

mbreese 7y ago
It's an RNA virus, so you start by isolating RNA and then using a reverse transcription reaction to make cDNA from the RNA. Then you use viral-specific primers in a traditional PCR. Most of the tests that I've seen presented have then be real-time qPCR tests as opposed to gels, but for the most part, you're not far off. Also, restriction digests aren't required. Note: I haven't seen any of the protocols, just what I've been able to learn from press reports. Edit: Here's a link to the CDC's panel protocol: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download And to add Wikipedia's page on real-time PCR (not to be confused with RT-PCR, which is also used here): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_rea... . However, the crux of it is that the reaction contains a chemical that fluoresces in the presence of double-stranded DNA. As the PCR reaction progresses, if there is a valid template in the original mixture (i.e. if there is virus present), then there will be a detectable amount of DNA present after a number of PCR cycles. The lower the number of PCR cycles required to detect this fluorescence, the more viral RNA was present in the initial sample.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Neat, thanks - it's amazing how quickly sequencing technologies have evolved.
  - mbreese 7y ago
    This isn't sequencing... you'd use sequencing to identify novel mutations or strains of the virus. This is a set of known PCR primers that amplify the virus's RNA. You could (in theory) also use a similar approach to identify specific strains of the virus, but this shouldn't be the priority at the moment. While you could have an assay that used sequencing, it wouldn't be nearly as fast or cost efficient.

DennisP 7y ago

This sounds like something we could really use in the U.S., too.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

What is enabling them to be the only people able to develop this far better test? Is the rest of the world unaware how home pregnancy and malaria tests work? If this was worth reporting on, there should be some kind of data showing how effective and cheap the test is when compared to the competition. I wonder what led Bloimberg and other financial news to pick this story up.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"What is enabling them to be the only people able to develop this far better test?" They're far from the only ones who've developed a far better test. Without specifically looking for them, since the outbreak began I've seen 4 or 5 reports of different companies developing far better tests. Unfortunately, I don't know if any of them have actually been put in to use, or what the obstacles to doing so are.
- giarc 7y ago
  If you are a company that wants to sell a test, you will definitely say it's a "far better test". Whether it actually is a better test is a much different story.
- VectorLock 7y ago
  I think the biggest obstacle is actually doing the testing of the tests to see if they're far better. Putting an ineffective or highly false positive/negative test out there could do more harm than good.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >I've seen 4 or 5 reports of different companies developing far better tests. Were any of the reports more detailed than "hey, we developed a better test. Give us money."

uptown 7y ago

Assuming tests aren't available -- is there nay prescribed care one can provide to others or do for ones-self if they contract the virus? I realize some conditions may worsen to the point that you'd require medical attention --- but what's the best course of action assuming that professional care is unavailable?

fma 7y ago
I feel like a question like this is better served doing a Google search and finding results from reputable sources...rather than asking a question on HN. Having said that, Coronavirus is consider a repository illness...so you'd probably perform the same home treatment as any other respiratory illness.
- rory096 7y ago
  >you'd probably perform the same home treatment as any other respiratory illness. Notably, you should not take ibuprofen or other NSAIDS. Stick to acetaminophen/paracetamol instead. Guidance from France's health minister: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/anti-inflammatory-drugs-may-aggravate-coronavirus-infection https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/anti-inflammat... https://twitter.com/olivierveran/status/1238776545398923264 https://twitter.com/olivierveran/status/1238776545398923264
  - velosol 7y ago
    This is good advice generally, especially for severe infections like COVID-19 but there's little evidence _specific_ to COVID-19 and a contraindication with NSAIDs. The Snopes [1] article covers the general gist although there is an early report around that the minister likely read and passed on in the form of a tweet. Research is changing constantly right now so evidence may or may not show NSAIDs contraindicated with greater risk than other infections. [1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-nsaids-ibuprofen/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-nsaids-ibuprofen/
swebs 7y ago
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/st... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/caring-for-yourself-at-home.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/ca...

the_arun 7y ago

In the same lines - Apple Watch or Samsung watch sensing it through sensors would be so cool. I'm not a doc, so don't know the practicality of it

nomel 7y ago
They have some LEDs that shine light into your skin. You're not detecting a specific pathogen by shining UR and visible lights.

baq 7y ago

it's either that and containment South Korea style or total lockdown China style. too much risk to be in between, though some were trying.

bugzz 7y ago

Why are flu tests so much slower and more expensive?

kube-system 7y ago
Probably because "the flu" is hundreds of different viruses and the entire world is not currently dumping massive amounts of resources behind developing them. Then again, the rapid flu test only takes about 5 to 20 more minutes than this, and doesn't really cost much more than any routine diagnostic.
shard 7y ago
I'm sure the are different types of flu tests, but the last one I had at the doctor's office about 2 years ago was two swabs of my nose, which the doctor put into a test kit, and a few minutes' wait for the results to develop in the kit. No idea how much it cost, though.

mehrdadn 7y ago

What's the current best false negative rate of any coronavirus test?

sdiq 7y ago

Cheap and fast screening tests for a number of health conditions are commonly available. However the sensitivy and specificity of these tests tend to be lower than the PCR, for example. Once a person tests positive in the first screening test, a second confirmatory tests is then ordered. This test should thus be one such fast screening test and would certainly help in a place like Africa.

afterburner 7y ago

How many can they make?

bolasanibk 7y ago
From the article: Mologic and the Institut Pasteur have joint capacity to produce 8 million tests a year

rhizome 7y ago

A test for $1 can be a test for free.

apk-d 7y ago
A test for $1 can be afforded by anyone.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  I'd say "can be afforded by the World for everyone". Sure, the average GNI (gross nat. income) for the poorest countries is about $2 (USD) per day, but affordability is more complex. However, if we taxed the World, and paid according to ability of nations to pay ... I mean USA could probably pay it for everyone and only have to not build an aircraft carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_... says that is $12B, money to spare!). [Yes, finance isn't that easy, the knock on effects would make the cost possibly greater, maybe less(!)?]
  - apk-d 7y ago
    The logistics of getting goods such as food and medicine into third world countries have hardly anything to do with their manufacturing price. Even once you get them there, distribution is a nightmare. Obviously I'm not referring to countries with no actual economy to speak of.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      The "$1" in a $1 test has very little to do with manufacturing costs, too.

aliljet 7y ago

These kinds of engineering/science solutions to a hard problem are the bread and butter of a community like this. Where can engineers pool their resourcing and work together to assist in the fight?

salimmadjd 7y ago

From their website [0] my guess is their test is ELISA [1] based or similar method of detecting if the human body has had an immune reaction to the virus in the amount that is detectable. Where as the more expensive test is PCR based [2] that requires the heating-cooling cycles and machines to do it. The PCR-based test basically take the RNA of the virus converts it to DNA and then doubles the amount of DNA every heating cycle. Assuming we are talking about real-time PCR the PCR cycle of double is what takes time. I have not seen the data on the incubation period and the immune response, to know if these immune detection tests will be able to provide early detection for asymptomatic case . It's probably for symptomatic cases and wanted to ensure it's not flu or another infection and it's COVID-19. This is not to say the test is useless. It actually great inexpensive way of testing the population with symptoms and using more expensive and timely test for early detection. Reducing the overall burden. worth mentioning are other initiatives that are focusing on cheaper and faster PCR process (though with potential of higher false negative and positive results) [3] [0]https://mologic.co.uk https://mologic.co.uk [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELISA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_polymerase_chain_rea... [3] https://twitter.com/JMRothberg/status/1238115465467133959 https://twitter.com/JMRothberg/status/1238115465467133959

entee 7y ago
RT-qPCR is indeed the common detection method right now. RT (reverse transcriptase) converts RNA->DNA, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) doubles DNA by replicating it over and over in heat cool cycles. To a first approximation, you get 2^n copies of the RNA (it was converted to DNA) where n is the number of heat cool cycles. By adding a fluorescent tracer, you get the q (Quantitative), so you can see how much DNA exists at each cycle. You can then fit a curve and see how much RNA (via its DNA complement) existed in the original sample. It's not actually that slow, you can do this in a couple hours if you have the right setup. The bottleneck is you do need time for the heating and cooling cycles. You also need to extract RNA from the sample first, which could be another bottleneck. I'm not totally clear on the relative cost, a good ELISA would eventually be cheaper, but qPCR itself isn't very expensive. The benefit is that qPCR is extremely sensitive, you WILL see if there is virus in the bloodstream. You can even use swabs and avoid blood altogether. Also, the minute you have a viral genome, you can make a qPCR test, you just need the sequence. That said, if you cleared the infection you will be negative under RT-qPCR. An ELISA works differently. In this case you would present a part of the viral protein, the patient's antibodies will bind to it, and you then use another antibody (this one is conjugated to some sort of readout method, fluorescent or biochemical) which binds to generic human antibody. Now you have a stack: viral protein <> patient antibody <> readout antibody. You read out the signal provided by your readout, usually some sort of colorimetric thing (see home pregnancy tests, also an ELISA, slightly different configuration though). This works fast, can be manufactured in bulk, BUT requires do you have a protein(s) (in this case the viral protein) that is/are universally recognized by patient antibodies. It's a little trickier to develop. You also need to produce that protein at scale which can take a little time as well. Major benefit: with a good ELISA you WILL see not only whether someone IS infected but whether someone WAS infected for some period after illness regardless of symptoms. This is essentially the only way you'll get a really good number for baseline infection rate. That said, you likely actually need a blood draw. In short, we need both, we probably could do a lot better than we are doing with qPCR in testing volumes and we could also really use an ELISA. Source: PhD biochemist, have personally run these assays in various forms. EDIT: Acronym expansion, source

Markoff 7y ago

by June when it will be available I'll be either dead or immune, same with most of the population

amelius 7y ago

Wouldn't a far less specific test do the trick as well? If we had a cheap test that tells us whether we have some kind of illness, corona-flu included, then I'd say that would be tremendously useful.

asiachick 7y ago

$1 would be nice. Some company in Japan is selling kits $250 for a 10 test kit https://monoist.atmarkit.co.jp/mn/articles/2003/13/news055.html https://monoist.atmarkit.co.jp/mn/articles/2003/13/news055.h... Google Translate Translation https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmonoist.atmarkit.co.jp%2Fmn%2Farticles%2F2003%2F13%2Fnews055.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

nlh 7y ago

Someone sent me this link recently. Can anyone provide some color on what's actually being sold here? Is this just fraud or are there cheap tests already available in China? https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=covid-19+test https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product...

Amygaz 7y ago

1st, SARS-CoV2 ELISA already exists. 2nd, the CDC did compare RT-PCR vs ELISA SARS-CoV back in 2005, and ELISA performed really poorly, and that was for acute cases. So, that is why we should stick with RT.

leemailll 7y ago

It’s relatively easy to develop a detection method, however the most important thing for any detection is the false negative rate, considering current situation. If the false negative rate is high, such a test might encourage spread of the virus. Some Chinese company already developed antibody-based detection method a while ago, But never saw they change the detection method in clinic. Elisa use the same basic principle as an antibody based test.

pdm55 7y ago

Discussion re new simpler antibody test https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-antibodies-could-show-true-scale-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-anti...