3 ms·
A quick, cheap, non-invasive test that is less accurate (in the direction of more false positives) would be far more effective than a more accurate but slow, ex
by Solstinox 6y ago
A quick, cheap, non-invasive test that is less accurate (in the direction of more false positives) would be far more effective than a more accurate but slow, expensive, and intrusive test.
- jdc 6y agoRight - see the MedCram lectures on the topic: How to Beat COVID-19 with At-Home, Rapid Result Testing: 5 Min. Summary by Dr. Mina (Antigen Tests) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZWuyvBAWWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZWuyvBAWWQ Coronavirus Pandemic Update 98: At Home COVID-19 Testing - A Possible Breakthrough (~ 15 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Sv_pS8MgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Sv_pS8MgQ At Home, Cheap, COVID-19 Tests with Results in 15 Minutes: How to Fix Testing with Dr. Michael Mina (~ 1 hr) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP-MHKU_cQE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP-MHKU_cQE
- zby 6y agoOnly videos? No text?
- raphlinus 6y agoThere are a bunch of articles etc on this, of which this is a pretty good overview: https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/covid-19-test-for-public-health https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/covid-19-test-for-public... I'm also a huge fan of this work and struggling to understand why it isn't more mainstream.
- zby 6y agojust found via marginalrevolution: https://www.rapidtests.org/ https://www.rapidtests.org/
- paxys 6y agoBut somehow every other developed country in the world has tests that are quick, cheap and accurate.
- Jommi 6y agoLets not making sweeping broad untrue generalizations
- raziel2p 6y agoSource? Governments are quick to brag but the reality in many places is that capacity is overwhelmed and it still takes several days to get results. That might be better than weeks in the US, but it's not black and white.