3 ms·

> Up to 1,000 tests per day on just 100 devices So.. 10 tests per day per device? That doesn't sound THAT impressive.

by ginko 7y ago

lmedinas 7y ago
"(...)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...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- blompa 7y ago
  The thing is though, the current PCR-based tests can be parallelised, with hundreds being run at the same time, taking just a couple of hours. The biggest waiting time comes from logistics with transportation to the labs, which is where the Bosch test is advantageous.
- PierceJoy 7y ago
  > 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?
  - PunchTornado 7y ago
    usually shipping the samples to a lab. this test can be done on the spot in the hospital by a doctor.
guillem_lefait 7y ago
"under two and a half hours" per test. To be able to make 10 tests per day, you'll probably can't have any delay between tests : 1 day = 10 x (2 hours + 24minutes). If accuracy is an issue, why not doing a two pass procedure ? 1) test quick and cheap 2) if results have low confidence, move to longer/more reliable testing method
- tachion 7y ago
  How does that help? Which results are you going to treat with low confidence for second pass and why? Positives? Negatives? Both? If both, then what's the point of first pass anyway?
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  That approach makes sense for when you want a low false positive rate, i.e. when the treatment is dangerous or expensive (so you want to avoid it at all costs if it's unnecessary). Here, it's the other way around. Treatment is benign (stay at home unless it becomes an emergency), but a false negative is expensive (you'd infect lots of others). What cheap test do you know that can have a low false negative rate? The only one I know is the one that flags everyone as infected.
4140tm 7y ago
it does, when you take into account the turnover of existing accurate test methods and their accessibility
buboard 7y ago
yeah that's bad marketing but who needs marketing these days. their advantage seems to be that they don't need extra personell to run , so anyone with sufficient safety precautions could use them in a hospital

> Up to 1,000 tests per day on just 100 devices So.. 10 tests per day per device? That doesn't sound THAT impressive.

by ginko 7y ago

> Up to 1,000 tests per day on just 100 devices So.. 10 tests per day per device? That doesn't sound THAT impressive.

"(...)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...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blompa 7y ago
The thing is though, the current PCR-based tests can be parallelised, with hundreds being run at the same time, taking just a couple of hours. The biggest waiting time comes from logistics with transportation to the labs, which is where the Bosch test is advantageous.
PierceJoy 7y ago
> 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?
- PunchTornado 7y ago
  usually shipping the samples to a lab. this test can be done on the spot in the hospital by a doctor.

guillem_lefait 7y ago

"under two and a half hours" per test. To be able to make 10 tests per day, you'll probably can't have any delay between tests : 1 day = 10 x (2 hours + 24minutes). If accuracy is an issue, why not doing a two pass procedure ? 1) test quick and cheap 2) if results have low confidence, move to longer/more reliable testing method

tachion 7y ago
How does that help? Which results are you going to treat with low confidence for second pass and why? Positives? Negatives? Both? If both, then what's the point of first pass anyway?
mehrdadn 7y ago
That approach makes sense for when you want a low false positive rate, i.e. when the treatment is dangerous or expensive (so you want to avoid it at all costs if it's unnecessary). Here, it's the other way around. Treatment is benign (stay at home unless it becomes an emergency), but a false negative is expensive (you'd infect lots of others). What cheap test do you know that can have a low false negative rate? The only one I know is the one that flags everyone as infected.

4140tm 7y ago

it does, when you take into account the turnover of existing accurate test methods and their accessibility

buboard 7y ago

yeah that's bad marketing but who needs marketing these days. their advantage seems to be that they don't need extra personell to run , so anyone with sufficient safety precautions could use them in a hospital