COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Sky King

The last thing I read was results late October with approval late November. At the earliest

Voltex

Some of the more optimistic experts suggest spring 21 for things to improve with vaccine....some of the more conservative experts say late Q2 to Q3 for a wide distribution of any vaccine. This will all be bad news for the Doom Squad.

All I know is that Sars-CoV2 is going to be with us for a very long time. We'll always be hearing about cases and it may take quite a while for the mental disassociation of this virus with our innate fear of contagion, which is what humanity is actually more fearful of.

When I read the headline in the Indo this morning suggesting first EUA vaccines before end of year, it struck me just how incredible this is!

Within 11 months of identifying a novel pathogen, humanity sequenced its genome, then developed, tested, manufactured and administered a new vaccine against it.

Humanity absolutely rocks!

Hmmzis

Some pre-clinical data from the other German crowd CureVac:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.23.351775v1.full.pdf+html

The vaccine seems to do very well in mice, titers and T cells at high levels from relatively small doses.

The syrian hamsters though. The assays don't look that different, both are 100 TCID50 with a starting dilution of 1:10 and both use a WT virus. Not sure what's the story there but the hamsters had a much lower response than the mice even though they got 2.5x the dose.
Still, the clinical scores look better than mocks and the viral loads are significantly down as well.
The other good points from their paper are that they got to try the challenge with sub-optimally protected animals (all good there, no VAERD or ADE). There is also a comparison with a Th2 inducing vaccine for comparison (some VAERD observed) and also some convalescent hamsters involved in the challenge for comparison.

They are now in phase 2 human trials, so they must have figured out the dosing after all.

Edit: and the doses are 4/6/8ug... go figure!
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04515147

afatbollix

Could we see that once vaccines are out that we could be given a Bio passport?

In the film Contagion they gave out a wrist band with each Vaccine but surely we could use our smartphones for them?

Maybe even the Government covid apps?

Get results from a PCR test scan the bar code and you're assumed ok at that time.
Get an anti-body test scan the bar code and your ok for a set time.

Have a Vaccine ok for travel and life back to normal.

FintanMcluskey

afatbollix wrote: »

Could we see that once vaccines are out that we could be given a Bio passport?

In the film Contagion they gave out a wrist band with each Vaccine but surely we could use our smartphones for them?

Maybe even the Government covid apps?

Get results from a PCR test scan the bar code and you're assumed ok at that time.
Get an anti-body test scan the bar code and your ok for a set time.

Have a Vaccine ok for travel and life back to normal.

Would a small tag on top of the ear not be more visible, or a micro chip?

Not everyone will have a smartphone at all times

Gael23

There will have to be something introduced as proof of vaccination

Voltex

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Would a small tag on top of the ear not be more visible, or a micro chip?

Not everyone will have a smartphone at all times

A tag could fall off....but a tattoo across the forehead...

giveitholly

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Would a small tag on top of the ear not be more visible, or a micro chip?

Not everyone will have a smartphone at all times

Yeah a Bill Gates chip for everyone............!

Irish Stones

Bit cynical wrote: »

If a vaccine does not eliminate the virus as people might have thought then we will have restrictions of various sorts to continue for a period longer than most would expect at this point in time.

This is what I meant in my previous posts, I'm glad someone else is saying the same thing in a clearer way.

Dickie10

maybe a star stiched onto government issue jacket,.................. yellow perhaps

Irish Stones

Talking about safety of rushed vaccines

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26G0NE

If it's true, this is what I was talking about.

Thierry12

Irish Stones wrote: »

Talking about safety of rushed vaccines

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26G0NE

If it's true, this is what I was talking about.

Not testing pregnant women is the big one for me

Pretty large group to leave out

They wont be able to get a vaccine

Herd immunity for them for 9 months

stephenjmcd

Irish Stones wrote: »

Talking about safety of rushed vaccines

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26G0NE

If it's true, this is what I was talking about.

An article from September, any new news for us ? This was widely known already by anyone following news in general or this thread.

Standard deal with regards to vaccines, companies supply at lower price for countries (EU in this case) providing higher indemnity, if countries want less indemnity they pay a higher price . Its explained in the article how this happens. It literally happens with every vaccine.

What you were talking about? You mean the posts where you came out with nonsense and multiple posters (some more knowledgeable than me in the area of vaccines)called you out on it.

We get it you wont be taking a vaccine, you've made that perfectly clear and have nothing to back up your opinion, we've been around in circles here.

theguzman

Dickie10 wrote: »

maybe a star stiched onto government issue jacket,.................. yellow perhaps

A digital passport will be the modern day equivelant, I hope there is a vaccine and it works but it should not come at the expense of freedom or liberty, yes Covid is a disease, I have had it myself so I am not a covid denier. It was however man-made and unleashed for a purpose, we are witnessing the reasons for this already now. I have no worries that a vaccine will be found because a vaccine was already made and tested and designed prior to all this, remember the war on terror, 9/11 etc. the American's are now actually allied with the Taliban, however our lives completely for the worse as a direct result of that and Covid is no different.

Le Bruise

theguzman wrote: »

A digital passport will be the modern day equivelant, I hope there is a vaccine and it works but it should not come at the expense of freedom or liberty, yes Covid is a disease, I have had it myself so I am not a covid denier. It was however man-made and unleashed for a purpose, we are witnessing the reasons for this already now. I have no worries that a vaccine will be found because a vaccine was already made and tested and designed prior to all this, remember the war on terror, 9/11 etc. the American's are now actually allied with the Taliban, however our lives completely for the worse as a direct result of that and Covid is no different.

This has to be the most tin foil hat post I’ve ever read....and there’s been a few!

Ten of Swords

theguzman wrote: »

A digital passport will be the modern day equivelant, I hope there is a vaccine and it works but it should not come at the expense of freedom or liberty, yes Covid is a disease, I have had it myself so I am not a covid denier. It was however man-made and unleashed for a purpose, we are witnessing the reasons for this already now. I have no worries that a vaccine will be found because a vaccine was already made and tested and designed prior to all this, remember the war on terror, 9/11 etc. the American's are now actually allied with the Taliban, however our lives completely for the worse as a direct result of that and Covid is no different.

Post doesn't belong in this forum. Conspiracy theories forum here. Post it there or drop this
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Irish Stones

stephenjmcd wrote: »

We get it you wont be taking a vaccine, you've made that perfectly clear and have nothing to back up your opinion, we've been around in circles here.

Isn't that great that you keep saying that you got it already what I am writing, that I made myself clear, yet you haven't understood what I am talking about?

stephenjmcd

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't that great that you keep saying that you got it already what I am writing, that I made myself clear, yet you haven't understood what I am talking about?

You've been posting utter nonsense for the best part of a week on this thread with absolutely no understanding of the process and trialling of vaccines and been called out on such by multiple posters. Now you post an article about the deals being done from last month, it was widely known and discussed on this thread and pointed out as to how its standard.

Its quite clear you've no idea what your on about, you've referenced Donald Trump by calling it the China virus and have also stated you wont take a vaccine due to not wanting more side effects despite little to no research on current vaccine trials and the approval process. It sounds like something straight out of the anti vac playbook. You've made it clear you won't be getting the vaccine due to a lack of understanding of the process.

With respect it is you who doesn't understand what your talking about. Your entitled to your opinion of course however its so far wide of the mark that it needed to be challenged and has been by a few posters.

All it takes is some research. It can be boring reading through it all but I've found myself much better informed after it.

dominatinMC

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't that great that you keep saying that you got it already what I am writing, that I made myself clear, yet you haven't understood what I am talking about?

I think the majority of posters on here are fairly well informed and do their bit of research (unlike the main Covid thread!), so I would think that they do understand your points but just don't agree with them. That is allowed you know, you're word isn't gospel. And just because you keep saying the same thing over and over again, doesn't necessarily make it true.

Thierry12

dominatinMC wrote: »

I think the majority of posters on here are fairly well informed and do their bit of research (unlike the main Covid thread!), so I would think that they do understand your points but just don't agree with them. That is allowed you know, you're word isn't gospel. And just because you keep saying the same thing over and over again, doesn't necessarily make it true.

This thread like the Covid19 thread on reddit should require some medical qualifications in the field to let you post in it

You've a few posters here posting every day acting like doctors, taking it very serious, posting links to medical journals, talking about efficacy, immunity, logistics involved, slamming other posters

What is your medical qualification btw?

dominatinMC

Thierry12 wrote: »

This thread like the Covid19 thread on reddit should require some medical qualifications in the field to let you post in it

You've a few posters here posting every day acting like doctors, taking it very serious, posting links to medical journals, talking about efficacy, immunity, logistics involved, slamming other posters

What is your medical qualification btw?

Who made you arbiter of this thread? If the moderators want to impose that condition, let them do so, until then we are all free to post.

As for the rest of your post, please point to an example where I linked a medical journal. And I fail to see what my qualifications have to do with this? Unless there is a requirement that you must have one in order to post in this thread? However, you certainly don't need a medical qualification to recognise a gob****e posting rubbish.

is_that_so

A piece on potential antibody treatments.

The 'curative' power of this antibody treatment(Regeneron) has yet to be proven. Although it has shown promise in small, early studies in people with mild COVID-19 symptoms, large clinical trials have not yet been completed. Meanwhile, researchers are already designing more-advanced antibody treatments that could be cheaper, easier to produce and more potent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02965-3

Hego Damask

Voltex wrote: »

Some of the more optimistic experts suggest spring 21 for things to improve with vaccine....some of the more conservative experts say late Q2 to Q3 for a wide distribution of any vaccine. This will all be bad news for the Doom Squad.

All I know is that Sars-CoV2 is going to be with us for a very long time. We'll always be hearing about cases and it may take quite a while for the mental disassociation of this virus with our innate fear of contagion, which is what humanity is actually more fearful of.

When I read the headline in the Indo this morning suggesting first EUA vaccines before end of year, it struck me just how incredible this is!

Within 11 months of identifying a novel pathogen, humanity sequenced its genome, then developed, tested, manufactured and administered a new vaccine against it.

Humanity absolutely rocks!

Check out https://www.humanprogress.org/ and Steven Pinker's latest book Enlightenment now

Really inspiring stuff and just shows how the media just love bad news and focusing on doom and gloom as that generated clicks/$$$

I hope the main stream media die a death after this, they are an absolute disgrace.

Gael23

Is there an ethical case for permitting adverse events in a small number of patients for the greater good of saving humanity?
We have seen AZ and J&J pause for one adverse event in approx 30k participants each. If these did turn out to be related to the vaccine is that 1in30,000 event acceptable to save the world?

jackboy

Gael23 wrote: »

Is there an ethical case for permitting adverse events in a small number of patients for the greater good of saving humanity?
We have seen AZ and J&J pause for one adverse event in approx 30k participants each. If these did turn out to be related to the vaccine is that 1in30,000 event acceptable to save the world?

Would you accept in a case like that if everyone in Ireland was vaccinated the vaccine would kill 100 healthy people.

charlie14

Gael23 wrote: »

Is there an ethical case for permitting adverse events in a small number of patients for the greater good of saving humanity?
We have seen AZ and J&J pause for one adverse event in approx 30k participants each. If these did turn out to be related to the vaccine is that 1in30,000 event acceptable to save the world?

But neither were related to the vaccines.

ddarcy

Gael23 wrote: »

Is there an ethical case for permitting adverse events in a small number of patients for the greater good of saving humanity?
We have seen AZ and J&J pause for one adverse event in approx 30k participants each. If these did turn out to be related to the vaccine is that 1in30,000 event acceptable to save the world?

There are a lot of questions for a serious adverse event (SAE). There is also a difference with adverse event. An adverse event is like bruising, a sore shoulder, not getting a hard on for a day or two.

An SAE is usually an event that usually, not always, requires hospitalisation (so heart attack, stroke etc). This is where things will slow down a bit as they need to see what triggered it. I’ve been on studies where someone took paracetamol and the interaction caused a SAE. That is where you typically get warnings etc on medications.

In both cases the trial was stopped and investigated. An external board takes in all the data (extra blood work /testing would be required) and go from there. If they can’t find any association then the trial resumes.

If it passes Phase III, it goes to IV where if something is seen in the general public the drug gets pulled quickly. So the drug will still be closely monitored on rollout (all drugs go through this)

Gael23

Sky picking this up https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-republic-of-ireland-could-begin-vaccinations-in-early-2021-says-leo-varadkar-12114248

Apogee

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

sheepsh4gger

I wonder what the import laws say about vaccines.

It looks like China and Russia have a vaccine and they are giving it to students going abroad. I wonder what would happen if I'd try to get a syringe pack (it's a box with a sealed syringe in it) and administer it myself.

I bet the politicians will not like that the pharma industry in their pockets can't benefit from the vaccines.

Stark

Apogee wrote: »

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

They did similar in Iceland from what I know.

RasTa

50k new cases in France

JacksonHeightsOwn

Apogee wrote: »

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

thats a brilliant idea, and pure common sense to.

The only stumbling block is imprted cases, but you'd imagine if you mass test the population then you really can out test the spread of this bloody thing

Thierry12

chrisbonnie wrote: »

thats a brilliant idea, and pure common sense to.

The only stumbling block is imprted cases, but you'd imagine if you mass test the population then you really can out test the spread of this bloody thing

Cheap too

They got 13m tests for €50m

Dressoutlet

chrisbonnie wrote: »

thats a brilliant idea, and pure common sense to.

The only stumbling block is imprted cases, but you'd imagine if you mass test the population then you really can out test the spread of this bloody thing

But imagine the Conspiracy Theorists saying. How they just want to store your DNA and quotr a photo of a UK bill passed in September

CIARAN_BOYLE

chrisbonnie wrote: »

thats a brilliant idea, and pure common sense to.

The only stumbling block is imprted cases, but you'd imagine if you mass test the population then you really can out test the spread of this bloody thing

They are using the antigen tests rather than the PCR tests so there will probably be a certain false negative/positive rate.

Obviously they have judged is a low enough %.

4068ac1elhodqr

Researchers Warn of Heightened Risk of HIV With Certain COVID-19 Vaccines (adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines).

https://www.ajmc.com/view/researchers-warn-of-heightened-risk-of-hiv-with-certain-covid-19-vaccines

Lancet:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext

Stark

Bentley Bald Tube wrote: »

Researchers Warn of Heightened Risk of HIV With Certain COVID-19 Vaccines (adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines).

https://www.ajmc.com/view/researchers-warn-of-heightened-risk-of-hiv-with-certain-covid-19-vaccines

Lancet:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext

I'll certainly be ****ing like there's no tomorrow once there's a vaccine anyway.

Martina1991

Apogee wrote: »

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) were asked by NPHET to undertake a rapid health technology assessment (HTA) of the alternatives to laboratory-based PCR to diagnose current infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Some snippets from the report in relation to rapid antigen tests include:

"Due to reduced sensitivity associated with Rapid Antigen Detection Tests (RADTs), the WHO suggests that RADTs should only be used when rRT-PCR is unavailable, or where prolonged turnaround times preclude clinical utility (i.e. a patient who needs a result urgently and can't wait).
Where RADTs are used, the WHO suggests a desirable minimum performance of ≥90% sensitivity and ≥99% specificity."

"The WHO currently advises against the use of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs)s in a number of situations, including for the purposes of screening in airports or other border points of entry; this is due to the highly uncertain prevalence of disease and unknown predictive value of the test."

"For RADTs, only one systematic review of diagnostic accuracy was identified. Sensitivity of such tests was found to vary significantly across test brands; estimates ranged from 0% to 94%, with an average sensitivity of 56.2% (95% CI 29.5% to 79.8%). Average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%)."

A test with 56% sensitivity means it will miss nearly half of positive cases.

"There is a lack of information on the diagnostic accuracy of alternatives to rRT-PCR in important patient sub-populations and settings. This includes asymptomatic individuals, specific at-risk populations such as healthcare workers, and the validation of diagnostic performance of tests outside of the hospital setting."

This implies rapid antigen tests would not be suitable in people with no symptoms or in vulnerable settings like nursing homes.


It's certainly an interesting project that Slovakia have undertaken. But they have not carried out as many tests as Ireland [tests per million pop: 127,116 versus Ireland's 310,431]. Perhaps they are trying this strategy if their lab based PCR testing cannot meet demand.

DaSilva

Martina1991 wrote: »

"There is a lack of information on the diagnostic accuracy of alternatives to rRT-PCR in important patient sub-populations and settings. This includes asymptomatic individuals, specific at-risk populations such as healthcare workers, and the validation of diagnostic performance of tests outside of the hospital setting."

This implies rapid antigen tests would not be suitable in people with no symptoms or in vulnerable settings like nursing homes.

False dilemma, I don't think anybody is suggesting using rapid tests at nursing homes instead of RT-PCR. You've been on here before downplaying the usefulness of these tests, however I can't see any logical argument against using rapid antigen tests where the alternative is no testing at all.

Supposedly nursing home staff are tested by PCR every 2 weeks, why wouldn't it help to test them in between that interval with rapid anti gen tests. How would that increase the risk to the residents?

Martina1991

DaSilva wrote: »

False dilemma, I don't think anybody is suggesting using rapid tests at nursing homes instead of RT-PCR. You've been on here before downplaying the usefulness of these tests, however I can't see any logical argument against using rapid antigen tests where the alternative is no testing at all.

My position is these tests haven't been proven to be accurate enough or suitable for the settings people want them to be used.
And I give references to back up my opinion.

DaSilva

Martina1991 wrote: »

My position is these tests haven't been proven to be accurate enough or suitable for the settings people want them to be used.
And I give references to back up my opinion.

I get it, you'd rather wait for there to be conclusive evidence that these tests are useful in the specific scenario of nursing homes. What I am saying is that I think their use in addition to the current procedures is unlikely to cause any harm and only likely to help or at worst have no effect.

I think you know there is literature around the idea that rapid less sensitive tests still have a lot of use. The paper you quote also doesn't even say they should not be used, but that other methods are preferable. If we have the capacity to perform PCR on nursing home workers every day and give them same day results, then why not, but if we don't I think use of rapid tests in addition to the current PCR testing is better than the biweekly PCR testing alone.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2025631

Hmmzis

Bentley Bald Tube wrote: »

Researchers Warn of Heightened Risk of HIV With Certain COVID-19 Vaccines (adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines).

https://www.ajmc.com/view/researchers-warn-of-heightened-risk-of-hiv-with-certain-covid-19-vaccines

Lancet:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext

Just to clarify, that risk is increased for any male who is seropositive for Ad5, regardless if that came from a regular common cold or a viral vector.

mandrake04

Antigen tests do have their place and were really recommended for developing countries who don’t have the resources, although most governments and the regulatory bodies are looking at them as they would have some applications but they are not the silver bullet everyone thinks they are only good if you have an advanced level of virus in your body. Although there needs to be virus present on the swab with PCR at least it has 3-4 day advantage because it’s far more sensitive.

Pre-Covid PCR was used mainly used in the naughty Viral/Bacterial infections, CT/GC, HPV, HSV, Syphilis and other seasonal respiratory infections. It was not designed for time sensitive pandemics but it’s still holding up pretty well despite criticism from retards who know piss all about it ...kinda good entertainment at times tho.

Biggest downside to any covid test is that depending on timeline of infection and the particular patient infection can be missed, leading to a false sense of security.

Some of the IVD companies are looking into developing stuff for the next pandemic, SARS2 has them thinking outside the box now.

Martina1991

DaSilva wrote: »

I get it, you'd rather wait for there to be conclusive evidence that these tests are useful in the specific scenario of nursing homes. What I am saying is that I think their use in addition to the current procedures is unlikely to cause any harm and only likely to help or at worst have no effect.

Rapid tests are poor at detecting the virus in asymptomatic people. So I think they are unsuitable in the scenarios where people think they will be available like airports, restaurants, pubs, festivals etc

If and when a rapid platform is used in Ireland it will be in a point of care setting, preformed by healthcare professionals. They won't be done at home or by teachers in schools.

This is where I think people get carried away when they hear these rapid tests are on the horizon. They won't be used they way people think they will.

WoollyRedHat

Martina1991 wrote: »

Rapid tests are poor at detecting the virus in asymptomatic people. So I think they are unsuitable in the scenarios where people think they will be available like airports, restaurants, pubs, festivals etc

If and when a rapid platform is used in Ireland it will be in a point of care setting, preformed by healthcare professionals. They won't be done at home or by teachers in schools.

This is where I think people get carried away when they hear these rapid tests are on the horizon. They won't be used they way people think they will.

Is it not important to detect level of infectiousness though and isolate potential superspreader individuals using these metrics? I read a Nature article that said they could be considered more effective as a test at day 1 and day 7. Countries like Japan have utilized these tests to good effect. Maybe not a silver bullet but perhaps could be used more effectively this way as pool testing and then PCR being used in tandem (use of antigen tests being used only when cases are at a manageable level).

Agree about point about them not being used the way most people think they will though.

Article in Nature here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02661-2

Martina1991

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Is it not important to detect level of infectiousness though and isolate potential superspreader individuals using these metrics? I read a Nature article that said they could be considered more effective as a test at day 1 and day 7. Countries like Japan have utilized these tests to good effect. Maybe not a silver bullet but perhaps could be used more effectively this way as pool testing and then PCR being used in tandem (use of antigen tests being used only when cases are at a manageable level).

How do you determine infectiousness in people who are asymptomatic, have a low viral load or from swabs that were taken poorly.

How do you know when day 1 or day 7 is in an asymptomatic person.

How do you find asymptomatic super spreaders when they are significantly likely to produce a negative result with an antigen test

WoollyRedHat

Martina1991 wrote: »

How do you determine infectiousness in people who are asymptomatic, have a low viral load or from swabs that were taken poorly.

How do you know when day 1 or day 7 is in an asymptomatic person.

How do you find asymptomatic super spreaders when they are significantly likely to produce a negative result with an antigen test

By using antigen testing against a groupset ,isolate them /PCR test.

Studies have been undertaken that indicate the rate of truly asymptomatic people is actually only at 20 percent. That statistic is key to success of such an approach with effective isolation. If you deploy antigen testing against clusters in first instance and get positives after day 1 you isolate them immediately because of high viral load detectuon and then you deploy wholesale PCR testing against those who produced negative results who may have been infected by highly infectious cohort. The other approach is using antigen tests day 1 and 7, then isolate the remainder if necessary.

Antigen testing on its own won't work granted, and it won't work when community transmission is everywhere but if used on a localized basis it can be effective and have an affect on supressing overdispersion transmission which can cause clusters to form and effectively spread the virus.

Miike

Martina1991 wrote: »

My position is these tests haven't been proven to be accurate enough or suitable for the settings people want them to be used.
And I give references to back up my opinion.

mandrake04 wrote: »

Antigen tests do have their place and were really recommended for developing countries who don’t have the resources, although most governments and the regulatory bodies are looking at them as they would have some applications but they are not the silver bullet everyone thinks they are only good if you have an advanced level of virus in your body. Although there needs to be virus present on the swab with PCR at least it has 3-4 day advantage because it’s far more sensitive.

Pre-Covid PCR was used mainly used in the naughty Viral/Bacterial infections, CT/GC, HPV, HSV, Syphilis and other seasonal respiratory infections. It was not designed for time sensitive pandemics but it’s still holding up pretty well despite criticism from retards who know piss all about it ...kinda good entertainment at times tho.

Biggest downside to any covid test is that depending on timeline of infection and the particular patient infection can be missed, leading to a false sense of security.

Some of the IVD companies are looking into developing stuff for the next pandemic, SARS2 has them thinking outside the box now.

Been meaning to ask both of you for some weeks now, I just forgot to PM you . What do you two make of the BD Veritor+ SARS-CoV-2 platform? IF it comes to fruition POC testing would be a nice stop gap between rRT-PCR testing, obviously baring in the mind the pitfalls of the system. My fear is that within the acute system it would be used inappropriately (as we've seen now even with not detected results being taken as true negative and removing people from isolation - massive case in the media recently) but I think it might have a place in primary care or OPD.

I feel like BD are making big claims with this system. I would love to see them replicated though!

mandrake04

Miike wrote: »

Been meaning to ask both of you for some weeks now, I just forgot to PM you . What do you two make of the BD Veritor+ SARS-CoV-2 platform? IF it comes to fruition POC testing would be a nice stop gap between rRT-PCR testing, obviously baring in the mind the pitfalls of the system.

It’s probably more reliable type of antigen test as it can detect small reactions that might not be visible to the eye, most rapid antigen tests rely on the paper changing colour and some use phone camera/app to detect the change. The POC device is more sensitive to that.

antigen tests are not a complete folly as they are detecting virus ...other rapid tests were testing for enzymes that the body produces when it sick or stressed.

I think like someone above mentions antigen and PCR combination can probably work together and can improve testing somewhat better than it has been, unfortunately due to the nature of the virus this still won’t be enough to return life to somewhat normality unless you take the whole process seriously. You need to corner the virus and test and isolate it to elimination .... and then maintain a low level through surveillance.