We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
CS
"Jdc. If you can spit on a spot and the test works then that would be different?
It's just how it appears to be with throat swabs. "
Until you have a product that comes close to our accuracy, it's a bit pointless coming on our board promoting it? You're hoping they come out with something accurate enough, but the fact it's taking longer than expected might suggest they're struggling to achieve the accuracy required?
They know it has to be very accurate, otherwise our government (and the governments around the world), will continue with swap testing using the infrastructure they already have in place.
CS, why are you back on this board again?
“If you can spit on a spot and the test works then that would be different?”
If it was so bloody easy to create this type of test why hasn’t it been done already? All the big boys are looking for a solution but quite simply the combination of accuracy, speed & cost is very difficult to achieve. The accuracy of rapid POC antigen tests is especially problematic, and when you are trying to contain a pandemic, accuracy is more important than speed for most countries...
Stan - if swab not taken correctly then any test will fail, whether its a blood prick one or saliva swab.
Not anymore ncyt need to move with times in this developing scenario
The Gold Standard as recognised by the WHO is the swab test.
Sounds like a Doc suffering from sea-sickness.
Maybe the 'swabs' using the swabs will have to be accurate when using them but IMO, the actual test is as good as it gets.
Could be a great deal of sensitivity around the SP this month but specifically no one is able to be 100% certain regards the future, apart from death and taxes.
And just to add even if our old friend Sea Doc was an actually practising GP, what the hell do they know about dna diagnostics. I'll tell you, nothing, nada. He has just googled that no GP ever delves into the science behind it, they are completely different paradigms. Doctors accept the science they are given by guess what scientists. No question, just pass on what they were told. If they were told to stick leaches on your bum they would do it. Unfortunately most of them whilst great and doing the world a great service are not free thinkers and certainly not great investors.
We've been over this so many times. FIND who do the WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION diagnostic logistics have done tests on both Sensitivity and Specificity on many products. There results can be found here.
https://www.finddx.org/covid-19/sarscov2-eval-molecular/molecular-eval-results/
There findings are that PrimerDesign is 100% specific and 100% sensitive. Go figure. Don't listen to ramblings of some lovely old Doc who sails the oceans - go to the source. It really is that simple. Remember he is shorting this, so is going to point counter points to the contrary. Think, think hard now, is he really a doc, does he really sail, or do you just trust someone who say's he is on a bb and just as gullably believe it, when all the info is out there with access to google. Come on folks, sharpen up.
lol that was in quotation marks from the article you posted!
my understanding is that novacyt has 100% sensitivity. and about 98% specificity
but if 99 truly positive and 1 wrong (negative) that would be 99% sensitivity
Doc thanks and pleased be assured I am not trying to argue against you just trying to get it right. the following is a quote from the article you posted and that is the one I previously read.
'A test that is 100% sensitive means all diseased individuals are correctly identified as diseased i.e. there are no false negatives.'
Thanks seadoc
'A test that is 100% sensitive means all diseased individuals are correctly identified as diseased i.e. there are no false negatives.'
I have no medical background. but I looked it up recently. I understood that sensitivity was the ability to correctly identify a positive result.
Doc have you transposed sensitivity and specificity?
"The kit shows a priming efficiency of over 90% if used under optimal conditions" quote from very favourable toned article in the Manila times, Philippines that valley Ford highlights on twitter. I thought novacyt was 100% at identifying under optimal conditions. I'm no medic but know there are a few on this board, can anyone explain the apparent difference?