Real quick response.
The tests are designed to only test for SARS-CoV-2, we've trialed them against other coronaviruses and common viruses in general. Will differentiate.
Will reveal tech on swab, but it's not the swab itself, it's combined with a reactive reagent in the kit to show clear results.
Test differentiation is clear to medical professionals, but perhaps not general public, this product is only to support professionals. We are in development of a cheap and rapid antigen test that can detect ASAP before symptoms and buys us a few days headstart. It's coming.
Testing for antibodies is still very important as people continue to shed a viral load post recovery in many cases and this should be a clear enough reason for that person to enter isolation of some description.
Working the hardest with what we have and will keep moving forward.
Thanks for your interest and support!
A 15 minute test cannot possibly do rtPCR which takes 45 minutes minimum, so this could only be an antibody test for who has recovered or is recovering. It's totally worthless in a clinical setting.
Any hard data on how long this is the case?
If you have a positive test you still have to stay in for seven days but they don't tell you why since the argument for the non-tested should also apply to the ones with a positive test.
However there is no hard data here but I think these anti-body tests are better for statistics than prevention. Maybe you could even get a "corona passport" so that when you have had it and become immune you have more freedom.
 https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/rad-til-personer-som-... (Norwegian)
I went through all the "certification" docs on both sites. I found nothing that actually certified either of them for anything. Anything that would've been remotely meaningful was censored (blurred).
If I'm making incorrect assumptions based on circumstantial evidence, what choice do I have? There's nothing on these sites substantiating their claims. If this is legitimate, you need to publish a complete paper trail that readers here can verify.
Edit: To clarify: Calling it a "scam" might be a bit harsh, but it's definitely misleading. There's nothing special about these tests, and there's a reason they're cheap and not in widespread use--they're not going to do what most people expect. This post sums it up nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22642421 All these sites are probably just dropshipping the same items from the same factories at heavy markups.
What we need are PCR tests...
There is literally NOTHING to be found about "rapidward" before 2 days ago.
I'm very skeptical to your added value, and not just a middle man with a marketing team, I don't care that it's non-profit.
You got 2 directors, a head of marketing, a head of Comms & PR, and a social media impact advocate...
(And the antibody test is also useful to figure out which nurses/docs are safe to send back in?)
>sensitivity was 88.66% and specificity was 90.63%
My understanding is that this test will miss 12 in every 100 covid-19 infected individuals, and it will return a false positive for 10 in every 100 patients.
My intuition says this is more than acceptable for a rapid test. But I would love to see the opinion of someone with some clinical experience.
That's a little unintuitive, but here's how it breaks down, without taking into account false negatives:
* 10% of the population will receive a false positive
* 0.1% of the population will receive a true positive
Which category are you more likely to fall into--10% of the population or 0.1%? You're 100 times more likely to fall into the false positive category.
A false negative is worse than a false positive.
Our medical infrastructure is already strained. If you tell 100x the number of actually infected people that they are infected, everything will grind time a halt.
It’s important to find a balance. A single false negative could be disastrous—but so could 1000 false positives. If the false negative and false positive rate are both 10%, and 0.1% of the population is infected, there will be 1000 false positives for every false negative. Both of those are going to cause huge (but very different) problems.
False negative would be more bad or am I missing something?
If you want to cause true mass hysteria and quickly overwhelm our already strained medical infrastructure, tell 10% of the population that that have SARS-CoV-2.
You need to stay home. There’s no way around it—certainly not for $20.
Advice re Legal supply of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in Australia
Quote from TGA:
"NOTE: In Australia, the supply of self-tests for most serious infectious diseases, including self-tests for COVID-19, is prohibited under the Therapeutic Goods (Excluded Purposes) Specification 2010. Testing for serious infectious diseases is best conducted in conjunction with a healthcare professional who can provide appropriate advice and treatment if required."
I can see it right there in the table. So it's definitely approved. On the self-test bit, of course not, even the manufacturer stresses this is for professionals to use. Not lay people.
My question about these. This one specifically says it tests for "COVID-19 IgM / IgG" anti-bodies. Could these kits also test positive for other non-SARS-cov2 Coronaviruses in the family, or are they accurate enough they only test for SARS-cov2?
> and synthesize significant segments of cov2 for a couple hundred dollars.
Please tell us more
The test in question has been fast tracked and approved by European regulations.
Here is their product sheet: https://www.corisbio.com/pdf/Products/SARS-COVID-19_20200324...
Here is their page: https://www.corisbio.com/Products/Human-Field/Covid-19.php
It seems to be quite similar but on this one you can see their test results and how effective it is.
Evaluation 1(n=99),95%,confidence interval:
-Sensitivity,60%,(40.7 to 76,8%)
-Sensitivity threshold,85.7%,on sampling with CT under 25(62.6 to 96.2%)
-Specificity,100%,(93.4 to 100%)
-Positive predictive value,100%,(78.1 to 100%)
-Negative predictive value,85.2%,(75.2 to 91.8%)
Evaluation 1(n=1 32),95%,confidence interval:
-Sensitivity,60.3%,(48.1 to 71.3%)
-Sensitivity threshold,76.7%,on sampling with CT under 25(61 to 87.7%)
-Specificity,98.3%,(89.7 to 99.9%)
-Positive predictive value,97.8%,(86.8 to 99.9%)
-Negative predictive value,66.7%,(55.7 to 76.2%)
It was developed by the ULB university in Brussels. It has been tested on 250 patients in two of Belgian's main university hospitals.
This company seems to have a history of producing such tests (for Ebola, Influenza and other pathogens) and there are numerous pubmed publications about them...
For initial infection, rtPCR is the gold standard and takes at least 45 minutes as of writing.
> Australian firm Rapidward said that five days ago it began supplying Covid-19 blood tests direct from China to Switzerland"
...meaning 7 days ago. But company "RapidWard" was only registered in Australia in the last 1 or 2 days: https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=67639947970
That article also says:
> it is registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK
This is easily checked:
> 0 results found.
>Raw Whois Data
Domain Name: rapidward.com
Registry Domain ID: 2504220709_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2020-03-17T05:43:49Z
Creation Date: 2020-03-17T05:43:49Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2021-03-17T05:43:49Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: US