The virus is multiplying exponentially. That means it gets bigger verrrrrry slowly at first.
And, once again, the tests were not described as catching the virus presence the day after initial infection.
Call me cynical but there’s no money to be made in cheap tests. The testing for Covid was quickly farmed out to private, for profit companies - Quest and clan. How will those interests profit of the pandemic with cheap tests?
[/quote]
That thought crossed my mind, too. But…the amount of $ to be saved with such a quick test far outweighs the amount to be lost if the sensitive tests go the way of Garmin mapping systems.
And Trump seems to want to let the free market handle this. Let the best test win.
So I still want to know where the fault is here. The tests themselves? Inability to follow the virologists logic among decision makers? My Senator (one of them) has proven to be pretty intelligent. I think he could ‘get it.’ Assumed inability for Americans to take a 3 second test every day?
I personally would be sleeping outside the store to be first in line to get these tests for my family if they do what the virologist said they would. I’m not sure which would disappoint me more…learning these tests are a bust, or learning that no one in a power position is making sure the FDA isn’t blocking them needlessly.
[quote=“cypresspat, post:1462, topic:2089680”]
Garmin mapping systems didn’t have the blockade of requiring FDA approval.
The researcher interviewed on TWIV is Michael Mina: https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/people/michael-mina/
He is pushing for cheap, fast, frequent testing. These tests already exist. They use manufactured antibodies to test saliva or blood for the presence of antigen (proteins from the virus). If the viral proteins are present, the antibodies bond with them, and the test comes up positive. It can be done anywhere, no lab needed.
Mina is an author on this paper which is in preprint: “Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 surveillance”
PCR testing is catching people at all stages of this progression. The cheap, rapid spit tests will miss people in the incubation phase, and at the tail end of the illness. But that’s fine because from a public health perspective, we just need to find people when they are infectious.
Here is the conclusion of the abstract for the paper:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v2
Two weeks is excessive:
This article from May 9th discusses the first rapid antigen test approved by the FDA. It’s made by Quidel Corp of San Diego.
The article quotes Dr. Birx as saying that:
The article also states that rapid antigen tests produce more false negatives than PCR, without clarifying that those false negative people are either pre-infectious (and highly unlikely to cross into the infectious zone in the next 12 hours) or post infectious.
According to the article, the government and private business have poured money into developing cheap, fast testing:
I’m not a big fan of Dr. Birx, due to her links to organizations which I believe can harm public health.
(If interested see
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/archive/anti-gay-anti-choice-childrens-aids-fund-still-raking-taxpayer-money/tnamp/ or https://sxpolitics.org/the-trumping-of-global-sexual-politics-a-preliminary-assessment/16491).
However, she is the highest profile person I have seen explaining and pushing rapid antigen testing to the public (which she did throughout April and May). This gives me hope that development is accelerating behind the scenes.
Surely they have at the very least ordered these for the military.
Garmin mapping systems didn’t have the blockade of requiring FDA approval.
[/quote]
My point had nothing to do with any government bureaucracy getting in Garmin’s way. Just the opposite. They disappeared from people’s dashboards almost over night, displaced by a superior and far cheaper technology. While Garmin doesn’t compare to big pharma in terms of size or power, no one cried a tear except their investors. I think the cries of joy for having a cheap quick test would drown out any concern for the lost if $ for big pharma’s current expensive tests.
Not cynical, but not thinking like a business person. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by cheap tests. It’s the holy grail. The expensive ones are doomed as soon as the first cheap one is widely available.
I think it is cynical in that it assumes that someone(s) who are not supposed to be picking winners and losers in the market, are. (Aka, pulling FDA strings to block cheap tests).
Thank you, @3SailAway for doing the homework I was too lazy to do.
I would like more evidence that these tests are easily (quickly) manufactured and results really are within 15 mins and the final retail cost would be no more than a few bucks. Then there are strategies to drum up a public outcry, or perhaps some other public response, to clear the path to get some of these into the market. If there is $ to be made by someone, they will make it. It is not at all unusual for an incumbent technology owner to try to block a competitor’s rise via legislation or regulation (taxi drivers blocking Uber, e.g.). But this situation had a pretty major public good motive far more important than the profits of ANY sector or certainly corporation. And there still would be a place for the very sensitive PCR tests (and their kin).
No one (Blix, Fauci, and for gawd’s sake, anyone in the executive branch) should be blocking the release of any potential answer to this problem, assuming it does what it says it does and is not harmful.
So these tests you are discussing are like pregnancy tests? Will they be over the counter? $8/each and 5 people in our family is $1,200 a month. That’s not really affordable.
Very promising treatment using an inhaler:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53467022?SThisFB
This exposes the sheer amount of testing that needs to be done if we are relying on testing for a permanent solution. Everyone, everyday until they get sick. To me, it points testing is only a stop gap measure and we are probably beyond that point.
If testing detects at exponential growth point that is only slightly better than temp check. By that time, the testee is probably already sick.
This completely ignores the possibility that T-cell immunity can protect a person, perhaps even for long periods. B-cell immunity might also be effective. The point is that immunity from disease is not limited to antibody protection.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-scientists-uncover-sars-cov-specific-cell-immunity.html
MIT develops effective re-usable mask for health care workers:
In other words, the rapid antigen test can detect contagiousness (useful for public health), even though it is not as effective as PCR at detecting infection (useful for individual health).
Well, I couldn’t find a law specific to COVID-19, but contact tracing is standard practice for sexually transmitted diseases. Here’s the one that covers HIV /AIDS in New York State: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBH/2133
What makes people really sick with this virus is their immune system’s own reaction to it. It goes like this:
- Exposure.
- About four days incubation (no symptoms, person is not contagious). Virus is replicating but the curve is gentle.
- Exponential curve shoots up.
- Person becomes contagious and is contagious for about 3-7 days (On these days, they will all test positive with rapid antigen, but only a very small percent will have a fever.)
- From this point on, we are describing symptomatic people. (The asymptomatic ones were also contagious, and then they kicked the virus and are done.)
- Symptomatic people will start feeling sick on the second day of the contagious period, and proceed to about one week of mild/moderate illness. During this week, the immune system stops the virus from replicating and begins to eliminate it.
- About 80% of symptomatic people recover after this first week.
- In the other 20%, although their viral load is going down, their immune systems have overreacted. This causes a cytokine storm to break out during the second week.
- Leading to severe inflammation, potential for clotting all over the body, pulmonary embolisms, organ damage etc.
Rapid, frequent antigen testing is done to benefit society, the economy, and our future, not just the individual. In order to safely open, and end transmission, we need to detect and bar contagious people from places where they will transmit. The test will catch people who are never going to have symptoms, but are contagious, and deny them entry until they test negative. It will also catch people who will become symptomatic shortly, or already are. Under the current testing system, only about 10% of people who have Covid are ever tested, and most of them are past the contagious period by the time they get a positive. This is useless from a broad public health perspective.
We need cheap, fast, frequent testing because we have sustained community spread of the virus in almost all states. There are too many people infected for any other strategy, with the exception of a vaccine. Should we wait for the vaccine, or acquire the technology we need to reign in the virus now? I think Michael Mina might have been too optimistic when he said $1 per test, but even if it costs $5, that’s a much smaller price to pay than the enormous costs of shuttered schools, businesses, churches, sports, theaters, concert halls, museums, hotels, etc. etc.
You only need to take a test if you want to enter a risk zone. Maybe the government will pay to test essential employees. Maybe employers will test their own non-essential employees who they want at work. I would definitely pay for a test in order to see a broadway show, or go to my kid’s track meet. Maybe competition and tech improvements can get the cost below $5.
"Stock market rules mean Synairgen is obliged to report the preliminary results of the trial.
"The results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor has the full data been made available; so the BBC cannot confirm the claims made for the treatment.’
Can you find the report or preprint or anything other than the press release? I see it was 109 pts http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/synairgens_sng001_shows_strong_promise_in_covid-19_trial_1345119
@Sybylla , there is no preprint or data beyond the press release. Here is the trial protocol:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04385095
However, the actual trial didn’t follow the protocol, for example, the protocol calls for 400 patients, while the trial had 100.
Here are reactions from the scientific community:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-announcement-by-synairgen-that-their-drug-sng001-has-had-positive-results-in-initial-trials-on-covid-19-patients/
Science Media Centre is a great place to look when something new is reported in the press, and you can’t tell whether it’s basically marketing for stock, or could be a real game changer.
My take away from the expert reaction was: could be promising, but always be wary of small studies claiming large benefits.