Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, First Round Bust said:

think how much better society will be in 2021 with test improvements, first draft of the vaccine and more awareness-preventative measures being taken, just gotta limp thru 2020...simply cant be any worse...

I'm not old enough to have lived through the ice age, but 2020 has to go down as the worst year in modern history. 

Edited by RaoulDuke79
  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)

Great news! Hopefully it’s accurate.

 

Quote

The Yale test removes one cumbersome and expensive step -- the extraction of RNA from samples -- that is a core part of nasal swab tests and the Rutgers test. Scientists warned early in the pandemic about supply chain bottlenecks and shortages in equipment required to extract RNA.

Extraction makes for a clearer and more certain result, according to both Brooks and Grubaugh.

 

"(The Yale test) loses a little bit of sensitivity, but what we gain is speed and that it should be up to 10 times cheaper," Grubaugh said. The Yale test replaces the extraction step with the introduction of a reagent -- chemicals mixed with the saliva sample -- and a short heating process that releases the virus genome. The team found successful results using reagents that are commonly available, meaning labs everywhere could implement the Yale protocol, Grubaugh said.


sounds interesting.

 

Quote

Yale administered the saliva test to a group that included NBA players and staff in the lead-up to the league's return to play and compared results to the nasal swab tests the same group took. The results almost universally matched, according to published research that has not yet been peer-reviewed.


Hopefully this holds true. A faster, cheaper test with the accuracy of PCR tests would be awesome news. But if it’s closer to the accuracy of the current antigen tests, well.... 

Edited by BillsFan4
Posted
3 hours ago, Reader said:

 

And perhaps if it's fast and cheap enough they can authorize enough tests for any player who tests positive to rule out any false positives.

 

With RT-PCR a so-called false-positive usually means one of two things:

1) the person actually had an asymptomatic case that went undetected and is still shedding viral RNA.  so it's not really a "false positive" test, but it doesn't mean the person is still sick or contagious

2) the sample got contaminated somewhere along the way

 

The fix for #2 is probably better testing and better lab protocol, not more tests

9 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

Great news! Hopefully it’s accurate.

sounds interesting.

Hopefully this holds true. A faster, cheaper test with the accuracy of PCR tests would be awesome news. But if it’s closer to the accuracy of the current antigen tests, well.... 

 

This test IS a PCR test, see up thread

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, DFT said:

If you’ve never experienced the current test, you don’t know how welcomed this news is!

 

#brainpoke

 

6 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

Exactly. They stick that q-tip into your thoughts

Fact check: You're being a baby... You should enjoy having a partial labotomy so they can test something when it's obvious saliva testing would be way more efficient.:flirt:

 

 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...