5 ms·

They used a type of PCR to analyze nasal swabs for their prediction of severity test, so it's not as easy as doing a lateral flow test yet (that's the type of t

They used a type of PCR to analyze nasal swabs for their prediction of severity test, so it's not as easy as doing a lateral flow test yet (that's the type of test we use as rapid Covid tests). Maybe it is not much more difficult or expensive than doing the PCR tests that we conduct for Covid though? There seem to be different types of PCR and I know little about that, so take that with a grain of salt. Maybe someone knowledgable can chime in?

Pyramus 5y ago
Not knowledgeable but I do know there was a grad student (post doc?) who created their own PCR test for SARS-Cov-2 in their living room using frozen peas as their cooling medium. Obviously this guy was a specialist with access to the right materials but it goes to show that a lot is possible.
- _Microft 5y ago
  It's absolutely astonishing how some scientific apparatuses started out. Here is an image of the first atomic force microscope (AFM) for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy#/media/File:Atomic_Force_Microscope_Science_Museum_London.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy#/media...
  - baq 5y ago
    perfect. also a great example of why commercializing research is so difficult and expensive - to get something from looking like it's barely holding together with duct tape to being a sellable product is no small feat.
rob74 5y ago
Yeah, maybe then testing for this marker could be done concurrently with the PCR test for Covid, and the tested person can receive a warning that they are likely to get a severe case - or the presence of this biomarker may even be used to give them priority for treatment with monoclonal antibodies or other treatment methods? The next question is of course: how do vaccines get into play? AFAIK they protect you from getting a severe case most of the time, even if you have this marker/lung damage? Anyway, that's one way having this marker might turn out to be useful - otherwise it only confirms what was already known, that patients with preexisting lung damage are more likely to have a severe case. Of course, patients or their doctors may not be aware of the lung damage or underestimate it, while the marker is more objective...
- boibombeiro 5y ago
  Intuitively, it dosent seems to be a good idea. We should hear what someone with strong Bayesian statistics knowledge think about this. But running tests on many people to do individual prognostic is usually a terrible idea.

Pyramus 5y ago

Not knowledgeable but I do know there was a grad student (post doc?) who created their own PCR test for SARS-Cov-2 in their living room using frozen peas as their cooling medium. Obviously this guy was a specialist with access to the right materials but it goes to show that a lot is possible.

_Microft 5y ago
It's absolutely astonishing how some scientific apparatuses started out. Here is an image of the first atomic force microscope (AFM) for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy#/media/File:Atomic_Force_Microscope_Science_Museum_London.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy#/media...
- baq 5y ago
  perfect. also a great example of why commercializing research is so difficult and expensive - to get something from looking like it's barely holding together with duct tape to being a sellable product is no small feat.

rob74 5y ago

Yeah, maybe then testing for this marker could be done concurrently with the PCR test for Covid, and the tested person can receive a warning that they are likely to get a severe case - or the presence of this biomarker may even be used to give them priority for treatment with monoclonal antibodies or other treatment methods? The next question is of course: how do vaccines get into play? AFAIK they protect you from getting a severe case most of the time, even if you have this marker/lung damage? Anyway, that's one way having this marker might turn out to be useful - otherwise it only confirms what was already known, that patients with preexisting lung damage are more likely to have a severe case. Of course, patients or their doctors may not be aware of the lung damage or underestimate it, while the marker is more objective...

boibombeiro 5y ago
Intuitively, it dosent seems to be a good idea. We should hear what someone with strong Bayesian statistics knowledge think about this. But running tests on many people to do individual prognostic is usually a terrible idea.