Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   FDA approves a $4 COVID test which doesn't require shoving a toilet brush up your nose   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, shot  
•       •       •

1755 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Aug 2020 at 4:20 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-15 1:39:49 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-08-15 1:44:41 PM  
Still requires reagents and I'm fairly certain the costs of existing tests involve the labor requires to collect samples and run and catalog the tests.  But more testing capability is crucial at this point.
 
2020-08-15 1:45:15 PM  
That tweet seems like an ad.
 
2020-08-15 1:50:31 PM  
SalivaDirect is the name of my fetish delivery service.
 
2020-08-15 1:52:46 PM  

cretinbob: That tweet seems like an ad.


Read the thread.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-15 1:53:07 PM  
Saliva.  "So how do you cover your costs?"  "Selling the DNA info from each sucker patient."
 
2020-08-15 1:57:40 PM  
it is slightly better than other choices but still require a diagnostic lab to run for results. so not really rapid results for large scale use.
https://covidtrackerct.com/about-sali​v​adirect/
 
2020-08-15 2:02:28 PM  

Ivo Shandor: cretinbob: That tweet seems like an ad.

Read the thread.
[Fark user image 550x436]


That's an ad.
 
2020-08-15 2:25:31 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Kinky...

Or,

Ewwww, gross...

/Seriously, I hope this does work.
 
2020-08-15 2:29:09 PM  
Sure, $4 for the test.

You want the results? Ok, that'll be $200.
 
2020-08-15 2:32:35 PM  

Unobtanium: [Fark user image 425x200]

Kinky...

Or,

Ewwww, gross...

/Seriously, I hope this does work.


I read about that the other day.  Several big colleges are trying it.

You pool 10-12 people together and combine their saliva, then test it.  If its negative, all 10-12 of those people are in the clear, with just one test being used.

If it's positive, then you test them all individually to see which one is infected.

It allows colleges to rapidly test large numbers of students on a regular basis without burning through thousands of tests.
 
2020-08-15 2:33:51 PM  
How much copay will the insurance companies want?

/yes I know the answer is "yes" shut up
 
2020-08-15 2:36:11 PM  
Saliva test for COVID? Easy. Let me spit on Trump then test him.
 
2020-08-15 2:41:00 PM  

eurotrader: it is slightly better than other choices but still require a diagnostic lab to run for results. so not really rapid results for large scale use.
https://covidtrackerct.com/about-saliv​adirect/


Yes, it's a step in the right direction but not perfect. We need stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/s​t​atus/1294698827694452736?s=21
 
2020-08-15 3:42:39 PM  

OldRod: Unobtanium: [Fark user image 425x200]

Kinky...

Or,

Ewwww, gross...

/Seriously, I hope this does work.

I read about that the other day.  Several big colleges are trying it.

You pool 10-12 people together and combine their saliva, then test it.  If its negative, all 10-12 of those people are in the clear, with just one test being used.

If it's positive, then you test them all individually to see which one is infected.

It allows colleges to rapidly test large numbers of students on a regular basis without burning through thousands of tests.


You may recall somebody has been pushing that style of testing for the past 2 months regarding opening schools.
 
2020-08-15 3:44:04 PM  

OldRod: Unobtanium: [Fark user image 425x200]

Kinky...

Or,

Ewwww, gross...

/Seriously, I hope this does work.

I read about that the other day.  Several big colleges are trying it.

You pool 10-12 people together and combine their saliva, then test it.  If its negative, all 10-12 of those people are in the clear, with just one test being used.

If it's positive, then you test them all individually to see which one is infected.

It allows colleges to rapidly test large numbers of students on a regular basis without burning through thousands of tests.


Yeah, I am familiar with the concept, but this is Fark...
 
2020-08-15 3:45:05 PM  

Ivo Shandor: eurotrader: it is slightly better than other choices but still require a diagnostic lab to run for results. so not really rapid results for large scale use.
https://covidtrackerct.com/about-saliv​adirect/

Yes, it's a step in the right direction but not perfect. We need stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/st​atus/1294698827694452736?s=21


If Donnie dipshiat would have done his job (he still hasn't) and used the power of the Federal Government for a national disaster , testing like below would already be widespread in the US

Mesa Biotech's Accula system is a handheld device that automates the RT-PCR process. It accepts a slim cartridge containing a sample, and uses a lateral-flow visual readout-like in a pregnancy test-to indicate test results in about 30 min. Each device costs a few hundred dollars, with cartridges priced at about $20

Quidel's Sofia 2, is an antigen test that displays results within 15 min. It uses antibodies on a lateral-flow strip that bind viral proteins in a sample and generate a fluorescence signal.
 
2020-08-15 3:52:42 PM  
Still no word on LoogieExpress.
 
2020-08-15 4:31:05 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Saliva.  "So how do you cover your costs?"  "Selling the DNA info from each sucker patient."


When something is free, you're the product
 
2020-08-15 4:32:34 PM  

propasaurus: Saliva test for COVID? Easy. Let me spit on Trump then test him.


He probably prefer a piss test. With russian hookers that look like Ivanka.
 
2020-08-15 4:38:41 PM  

OldRod: You pool 10-12 people together and combine their saliva



My username is about to check out.
 
2020-08-15 4:41:46 PM  
Though it doesn't REQUIRE I shove a toilet brush up my nose. can I elect to do so anyway?
 
2020-08-15 4:45:51 PM  
The cheapest and easiest test is this:

Please tick one box only
Coughing? [ ]
Coffin? [ ]
 
2020-08-15 4:49:33 PM  

The Perineum Falcon: Though it doesn't REQUIRE I shove a toilet brush up my nose. can I elect to do so anyway?


If you're brave enough.
 
2020-08-15 4:50:31 PM  
The worst part of the test is the putting the stick (that's wet with saliva) into your nostril and twisting it.
 
2020-08-15 4:55:14 PM  
CSB: Got tested for covid on Thursday using the CVS model, which is an insurance-only, saline-dipped cotton swab in both nostrils, that I performed on myself in front of them through the drive-up window like a good little voyeur. It was the easiest way that I could find to get tested on short notice without getting a doctor's approval. I don't know the cost as one of the ways they keep it safe is by not taking payment, but it was pretty painless.

/unlike covid, which I just received the positive confirmation of
//I will blame myself, for not keeping my distance from my own farking idiot family
///paying for it, for sure
 
2020-08-15 5:14:44 PM  

eurotrader: Ivo Shandor: eurotrader: it is slightly better than other choices but still require a diagnostic lab to run for results. so not really rapid results for large scale use.
https://covidtrackerct.com/about-saliv​adirect/

Yes, it's a step in the right direction but not perfect. We need stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/st​atus/1294698827694452736?s=21

If Donnie dipshiat would have done his job (he still hasn't) and used the power of the Federal Government for a national disaster , testing like below would already be widespread in the US

Mesa Biotech's Accula system is a handheld device that automates the RT-PCR process. It accepts a slim cartridge containing a sample, and uses a lateral-flow visual readout-like in a pregnancy test-to indicate test results in about 30 min. Each device costs a few hundred dollars, with cartridges priced at about $20

Quidel's Sofia 2, is an antigen test that displays results within 15 min. It uses antibodies on a lateral-flow strip that bind viral proteins in a sample and generate a fluorescence signal.


Speaking as someone who was involved in a virus survey for Plum Pox, we sampled leaves from trees with sampling method severity based on distance from the location of previous positives.  The leaves were ground up and each tree's leaf juice was placed into a single well in a 96 well plate.  The samples were the subjected to sandwich ELISA (well coated with antibodies, those antibodies grab the antigen the antibodies are designed for, the sample is washed away, then an antibody with an attached chemical substrate is added and any virus stuck to the well antibodies grab onto the new antibodies, this is washed away and a chemical is added to make that substrate glow.  If there is any virus, there should be glowing.)  Positives were PCR tested to confirm actual virus.
 
2020-08-15 5:17:10 PM  
Is this test as inaccurate as others have been?
 
2020-08-15 5:18:43 PM  
So the word "cadence" entered our lexicon recently. It means frequency. Nothing more. When I've seen someone argue it means more, it actually demonstrates they don't understand what frequency is.

Anyhow, it meant adding an extra Tweet in that thread. Everything communicated by the CADENCE Tweet was communicated in the others. it was extra, meaningless, language.

Since we hate Scottt Adams now, it would be good to remind ourselves that business (and not science) adds all kinds of extra words to create bullshiat jobs and lie about new, added value to raise the price of things.

Please, for the love of fark, don't use the word "cadence" when you are talking about frequency.
 
2020-08-15 5:23:09 PM  

OldRod: Unobtanium: [Fark user image 425x200]

Kinky...

Or,

Ewwww, gross...

/Seriously, I hope this does work.

I read about that the other day.  Several big colleges are trying it.

You pool 10-12 people together and combine their saliva, then test it.  If its negative, all 10-12 of those people are in the clear, with just one test being used.

If it's positive, then you test them all individually to see which one is infected.

It allows colleges to rapidly test large numbers of students on a regular basis without burning through thousands of tests.


Yep, and you can even cross batch to narrow things down further.
 
2020-08-15 5:29:25 PM  
The current federal government only cares about fecal matter distillates testing. The results produced have even less value than the source material and we are all downwind of a testing site.
 
2020-08-15 5:36:01 PM  

Badmoodman: Sure, $4 for the test.

You want the results? Ok, that'll be $200.


Sounds about right. Making zero dollars and losing money are 2 different things. $4 in production costs, $150 a pallet on shipping, plus testing. Costs not zero dollars.
 
2020-08-15 5:36:37 PM  
Subby, you're gullible. It's an ad.

You also whine. It's a Q-Tip that goes about an inch up your nose.

The nurse told me "I don't know why people think they need to scratch their brain."
 
2020-08-15 5:39:41 PM  
Wait, I thought that was a feature not a bug!
 
2020-08-15 5:44:50 PM  

Badmoodman: Sure, $4 for the test.

You want the results? Ok, that'll be $200.


He says the cost of materials is $4. Is that cost to the manufacturer? If so, that doesn't say much about the selling price even outside of processing the test.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-15 6:44:23 PM  

Ivo Shandor: eurotrader: it is slightly better than other choices but still require a diagnostic lab to run for results. so not really rapid results for large scale use.
https://covidtrackerct.com/about-saliv​adirect/

Yes, it's a step in the right direction but not perfect. We need stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/st​atus/1294698827694452736?s=21


MEDCram has some other videos with Dr Mina about this kind of testing.
How to Fix COVID-19 Testing Q/A with Dr. Michael Mina: At Home Daily Quick Tests
Youtube 3seIAs-73G8
 
2020-08-15 6:45:45 PM  

you need help: CSB: Got tested for covid on Thursday using the CVS model, which is an insurance-only, saline-dipped cotton swab in both nostrils, that I performed on myself in front of them through the drive-up window like a good little voyeur. It was the easiest way that I could find to get tested on short notice without getting a doctor's approval. I don't know the cost as one of the ways they keep it safe is by not taking payment, but it was pretty painless.

/unlike covid, which I just received the positive confirmation of
//I will blame myself, for not keeping my distance from my own farking idiot family
///paying for it, for sure


Good luck.
 
2020-08-15 6:51:21 PM  
If you are a trumper you can just drool.
 
2020-08-15 6:56:34 PM  

mjbok: Is this test as inaccurate as others have been?


It depends on what you mean by "accurate". Asking "are there any measurable traces of RNA in the sample" or "is this person shedding infectious virus" are two different questions. The clinical PCR tests only report positive/negative, but one "positive" might be just above the threshold while another might have 10,000 times as much viral RNA.

There's a timeline after an infection:
No detectable virus
Virus detectable by PCR
Virus detectable by other methods
Peak viral load
Onset of symptoms
Viral load decreasing due to immune response
Virus no longer detectable by non-PCR
Patient is PCR-negative
"Recovered"

Less sensitive tests are fine as long as you can test people frequently. They might test negative on Monday even though a PCR test would have picked it up, but by the time you re-test on Wednesday they will have produced enough virus for both test methods to show positive. You can then send them home and start contract-tracing for the last few days. That's a much better scenario than giving them a PCR test on Monday but not receiving the positive result until Friday afternoon after they've spent a whole week spreading the infection.
 
2020-08-15 6:57:15 PM  

Nikan1: Ivo Shandor: eurotrader: it is slightly better than other choices but still require a diagnostic lab to run for results. so not really rapid results for large scale use.
https://covidtrackerct.com/about-saliv​adirect/

Yes, it's a step in the right direction but not perfect. We need stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/st​atus/1294698827694452736?s=21

MEDCram has some other videos with Dr Mina about this kind of testing.
[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/3seIAs-7​3G8]


A deep dive on this and other testing concepts (with caveats for each).
 
2020-08-15 7:04:24 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: The cheapest and easiest test is this:

Please tick one box only
Coughing? [ ]
Coffin? [ ]


Your attempt at humor, dark or otherwise, failed miserably. Swing again.
 
2020-08-15 7:06:38 PM  

slobberbone: Subby, you're gullible. It's an ad.

You also whine. It's a Q-Tip that goes about an inch up your nose.

The nurse told me "I don't know why people think they need to scratch their brain."


Because multiple Farkers have said so?
 
2020-08-15 7:10:05 PM  

slobberbone: Subby, you're gullible. It's an ad.

You also whine. It's a Q-Tip that goes about an inch up your nose.

The nurse told me "I don't know why people think they need to scratch their brain."


There are different test procedures using different materials. Yours might have been a 1-inch Q-tip but that doesn't mean it was that way for everyone else.
 
2020-08-15 7:21:59 PM  

Ivo Shandor: slobberbone: Subby, you're gullible. It's an ad.

You also whine. It's a Q-Tip that goes about an inch up your nose.

The nurse told me "I don't know why people think they need to scratch their brain."

There are different test procedures using different materials. Yours might have been a 1-inch Q-tip but that doesn't mean it was that way for everyone else.


https://health.ucdavis.edu/coronaviru​s​/coronavirus-testing.html
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-15 7:26:08 PM  

WelldeadLink: Ivo Shandor: slobberbone: Subby, you're gullible. It's an ad.

You also whine. It's a Q-Tip that goes about an inch up your nose.

The nurse told me "I don't know why people think they need to scratch their brain."

There are different test procedures using different materials. Yours might have been a 1-inch Q-tip but that doesn't mean it was that way for everyone else.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus​/coronavirus-testing.html
[Fark user image 500x365]


buh!
 
2020-08-15 7:26:13 PM  

The Perineum Falcon: Though it doesn't REQUIRE I shove a toilet brush up my nose. can I elect to do so anyway?


I was hoping to put my brush, um, elsewhere.  Hope that's kosher too.
 
2020-08-15 8:09:12 PM  
Even if we could test every person every day, if we cannot get people to wear masks, I don't see how we get asymptomatic people to quarantine. Americans are too selfish.
 
2020-08-15 8:35:25 PM  
Trump's FDA approved? I don't believe it.
 
2020-08-15 8:38:46 PM  

Earguy: Trump's FDA approved? I don't believe it.


Yeah, me too. I don't see how this helps Trump get reelected.
 
2020-08-15 8:42:02 PM  

slobberbone: Subby, you're gullible. It's an ad.

You also whine. It's a Q-Tip that goes about an inch up your nose.

The nurse told me "I don't know why people think they need to scratch their brain."


A nurse did mine in the ER before my emergency surgery. It's more than an inch. It was really painful.

I have to have more surgery in October and I have another covid test scheduled for the end of September.  I'm more scared of the covid test then the surgery
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.