5 ms·

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test Kit [1] is a disposable electronic test kit powered by two AA batteries. This is not a Michael Mina $dollar-a-day lick-a-sti

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test Kit [1] is a disposable electronic test kit powered by two AA batteries. This is not a Michael Mina $dollar-a-day lick-a-stick that is sensitive to infectious viral loads (PCR CT of 24 or less). This device is sensitive to equivalent CT values of 37.5 or less coming close to PCR which score viral loads as low as CT of 39 as positive. Regulators have set the bar too high. We need cheap and easy daily rapid tests that are sensitive to infectious viral loads. [1] https://www.lucirahealth.com/#the-test-kit https://www.lucirahealth.com/#the-test-kit

wavegeek 6y ago
There is a rapid cheap test for covid-19 infection. It consists of checking whether a person has cold/flu symptoms and/or a temperature over 37.5. This test may sound ridiculous but it is part of the reason why Taiwan has had hardly any deaths from the virus and yet did not have to have a lockdown. In Taiwan, checks are made at entrance to work, school, transport, shops. Those who have symptoms as above are excluded. This, combined with other measures (below) has been enough to produce successful control of the disease. Some numbers Country, deaths/million, GDP fall Q2/2020 Taiwan,0.3,-0.6 Australia,35,-7.0 Germany,158,-11.2 Sweden,167,-8.3 USA,767,-9.6 Belgium,1278,-14.5 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy Measures Taiwan took 1. Close borders as hard as possible very early. 2. Strictly and competently managed mandatory quarantine of overseas arrivals. 3. Mandatory facemasks. Initially supplies were rationed until supplied caught up. 4. Health checks as above. 5. Competently managed contact tracing. Some of this strategy may be difficult to duplicate in certain countries. See the steps with the word "competent" included. Also the Taiwanese public appear to trust the government's competence and good intentions, something that does not seem to be true in some other countries.
- adanto6840 6y ago
  The studies & data on "health checks" -- temperature checks, symptom screening, etc -- thus far shows that it is generally considered to not be very effective. Here are 3 studies I found quickly, but this line from [2] sums it up nicely: "... screening is resource intensive and its effectiveness is limited due to a high proportion of asymptomatic or pre‐symptomatic cases, resulting in low detection rates." [0] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014668/ [1] - https://elifesciences.org/articles/55570 https://elifesciences.org/articles/55570 (includes bonus GH repo w/ data and methodology) [2] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2192 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2192
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    Limited effectiveness is not the same as ineffective. Cloth masks are less effective than n95 which are less effective than paprs. So I should not wear any mask unless I can get a papr because they're not as effective?
    - adanto6840 6y ago
      I don't disagree, though it does come down to cost-benefit. Masks are a no-brainer IMO; they're cheap & data generally leans towards them having some level of efficacy even at the lowest ends of the cost-spectrum (ie cloth coverings), and they appear to have rapidly-increasing efficacy as the cost-spectrum value rises (ie N95+, respirators, etc). I should have included the last sentence from that paragraph in the study, because it's pretty concise: "Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the cost‐benefit of implementing such measures." IMO it'd be impossible & fruitless to attempt to get even moderate numbers of businesses to do health & temperature screening, much less small businesses; it's just cost-prohibitive, and with the benefit being mediocre at best, there are likely better places to allocate resources.
- iszomer 6y ago
  There are also checkpoints throughout the airport that monitors with thermal cameras. It's been that way for as long as I can remember whenever I travel there.
- neuronic 6y ago
  It would be far more effective to include taste/smell checks. The loss of these senses is a far stronger predictor for COVID than a cough.
- morsch 6y ago
  Your deaths/million number for Sweden is way off, it's 624, not 167. Haven't checked the other numbers.
makomk 6y ago
The trouble is, the moment the bar is lowered, the press will run scary articles about how the tests miss large numbers of people that are detected by the PCR test and how there's no evidence that lower CT value equivalents correspond to lower infectivity. This has already basically happened in the UK after the government launched a trial of mass testing an entire city using one of the better and less cheap rapid tests. It undermines confidence in Covid testing as a whole.
- sradman 6y ago
  Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates [1] paper from Clinical Infectious Diseases: > It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive. We need the right tool for the job. A positive daily lick-a-stick screening test should be confirmed with serum IgM and/or PCR testing. Each tool in our toolbox has a sweet spot and tradeoffs. The key to the daily screening test is that there is only a short window early in the infection that has a CT > 25. [1] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
- bhickey 6y ago
  > lower CT value equivalents correspond to lower infectivity. Ct stands for cycle threshold: how many cycles did you need to run the PCR machine before crossing your detection threshold.

wavegeek 6y ago

There is a rapid cheap test for covid-19 infection. It consists of checking whether a person has cold/flu symptoms and/or a temperature over 37.5. This test may sound ridiculous but it is part of the reason why Taiwan has had hardly any deaths from the virus and yet did not have to have a lockdown. In Taiwan, checks are made at entrance to work, school, transport, shops. Those who have symptoms as above are excluded. This, combined with other measures (below) has been enough to produce successful control of the disease. Some numbers Country, deaths/million, GDP fall Q2/2020 Taiwan,0.3,-0.6 Australia,35,-7.0 Germany,158,-11.2 Sweden,167,-8.3 USA,767,-9.6 Belgium,1278,-14.5 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy Measures Taiwan took 1. Close borders as hard as possible very early. 2. Strictly and competently managed mandatory quarantine of overseas arrivals. 3. Mandatory facemasks. Initially supplies were rationed until supplied caught up. 4. Health checks as above. 5. Competently managed contact tracing. Some of this strategy may be difficult to duplicate in certain countries. See the steps with the word "competent" included. Also the Taiwanese public appear to trust the government's competence and good intentions, something that does not seem to be true in some other countries.

adanto6840 6y ago
The studies & data on "health checks" -- temperature checks, symptom screening, etc -- thus far shows that it is generally considered to not be very effective. Here are 3 studies I found quickly, but this line from [2] sums it up nicely: "... screening is resource intensive and its effectiveness is limited due to a high proportion of asymptomatic or pre‐symptomatic cases, resulting in low detection rates." [0] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014668/ [1] - https://elifesciences.org/articles/55570 https://elifesciences.org/articles/55570 (includes bonus GH repo w/ data and methodology) [2] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2192 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2192
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Limited effectiveness is not the same as ineffective. Cloth masks are less effective than n95 which are less effective than paprs. So I should not wear any mask unless I can get a papr because they're not as effective?
  - adanto6840 6y ago
    I don't disagree, though it does come down to cost-benefit. Masks are a no-brainer IMO; they're cheap & data generally leans towards them having some level of efficacy even at the lowest ends of the cost-spectrum (ie cloth coverings), and they appear to have rapidly-increasing efficacy as the cost-spectrum value rises (ie N95+, respirators, etc). I should have included the last sentence from that paragraph in the study, because it's pretty concise: "Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the cost‐benefit of implementing such measures." IMO it'd be impossible & fruitless to attempt to get even moderate numbers of businesses to do health & temperature screening, much less small businesses; it's just cost-prohibitive, and with the benefit being mediocre at best, there are likely better places to allocate resources.
iszomer 6y ago
There are also checkpoints throughout the airport that monitors with thermal cameras. It's been that way for as long as I can remember whenever I travel there.
neuronic 6y ago
It would be far more effective to include taste/smell checks. The loss of these senses is a far stronger predictor for COVID than a cough.
morsch 6y ago
Your deaths/million number for Sweden is way off, it's 624, not 167. Haven't checked the other numbers.

makomk 6y ago

The trouble is, the moment the bar is lowered, the press will run scary articles about how the tests miss large numbers of people that are detected by the PCR test and how there's no evidence that lower CT value equivalents correspond to lower infectivity. This has already basically happened in the UK after the government launched a trial of mass testing an entire city using one of the better and less cheap rapid tests. It undermines confidence in Covid testing as a whole.

sradman 6y ago
Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates [1] paper from Clinical Infectious Diseases: > It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive. We need the right tool for the job. A positive daily lick-a-stick screening test should be confirmed with serum IgM and/or PCR testing. Each tool in our toolbox has a sweet spot and tradeoffs. The key to the daily screening test is that there is only a short window early in the infection that has a CT > 25. [1] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
bhickey 6y ago
> lower CT value equivalents correspond to lower infectivity. Ct stands for cycle threshold: how many cycles did you need to run the PCR machine before crossing your detection threshold.