https://twitter.com/aslavitt/status/1294810764189093888?s=21
1 Like
The saliva test being approved will likely significantly increase testing because it won’t need to be run through the states as far I could tell (meaning anyone can get it…two tests for $20). The expectation on that is a ramp up within a few weeks, and pool testing was approved almost a month ago by the FDA. I’ve been waiting for that to get dumped on us for awhile, and now there’s an excuse for it.
I think it’s more likely they’re going to try to make it look like we’re testing 850k per day (like Thursday and Friday) and you’re just going to see cases and positive rates rising big time to get us back to that swole 70k level unless the dam bursts similarly to what happened in the peak week.
For your last paragraph, I’m probably one of the most pessimistic people here on where things are headed. Following the SDI and knowing what it theoretically takes to reduce spread, things are going to get terrible soon especially considering the devastating effects of no money coming to people that will begin showing up huge by the third week of September.
That said, if I see any ray of sunshine that looks real, I will certainly report it (Arizona’s case reduction while not in scale is absolutely real as is the reduction in the U.S. overall cases while also not in scale). Right now, big states are moving down and small states are moving way up. It’s going to be much more difficult to see this big rise when it takes 4 or 5 states to match case totals in Florida or California. Again, I’m not even remotely downplaying anything, I’m just saying the actual growth in the next phase in reality will be smaller than how it looks based on how dramatically testing has been reduced while making it seem like it’s flat or going up.
One thing that Andy Slavitt thread made clear was that it isn’t like a pregnancy test or something. The saliva samples have to go somewhere. Lab equipment the last time I bothered to check seemed to be a significant bottleneck to now much testing was being done.
It’s a particular type of equipment that apparently most labs have or can get very easily and/or cheaply so the equipment will not in the least be an impediment to the testing if I read Slavitt right. I agree it’s not ideal that it has to go to a lab, but it appears to be light years better than the nasal swab with more or similar accuracy.
The other test I heard about was much more promising but they are being slowed down by regulation with the FDA. That one is another super low cost test that is some kind of strip that can have sheets of 1 million tests produced (hello DPA). These would be at home tests with something like a 15 minute result and I think the cost would be about $1 per test that could easily be funded by the government. His idea was having the U.S. government send every person in the country 50 tests that I think you do every day or every other day. If you test positive you don’t leave your house until you’ve finished your quarantine and are testing negative again. If you don’t test positive, you can safely leave each day. If my math is right, each person getting 50 tests would be roughly $17 billion dollars, chump change inside these bills.
I think I read about it around 2 weeks ago, and I’m pretty sure he was convinced we could crush the pandemic with that test and that strategy in about 2 months.
Pool testing is worthless when you have 20% positive rates
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s not the instant on-the-spot saliva test strips for $1 that I’m hoping for so we can get closer back to normal, but it’s a start.
But private companies will likely charge more than $10 and it has to be sent to a lab. Between $4 materials cost + packaging + clinic charge to administer + shipping to lab + lab costs etc we will be lucky to get 1 for $20, nevermind 2 for $20.
And we have yet to see how much it increases testing capacity. Hopefully a lot, but I’ll believe it when I see it. And with 10%(?) false negative rate we really need to see everyone take 2 tests to get to 99%, but maybe those can be pooled depending on what causes the false negatives?
I hadn’t read that we were that close to the instant saliva tests. That’s good news if so.
Waiting for conservatives to say that instant saliva strips are laced with a drug that will do something like affect a man’s sperm so that all his babies will be gay.
2 Likes
Yeah, based on what I read about how they were done I couldn’t see any way that all the samples wouldn’t end up having to be tested. If any single test in a pool was positive all in the pool would have to be analyzed.
I wish I had bookmarked the article, but yeah he made it seem like it could be ramped up super fast. The FDA hurdles seemed to be a real problem. They’re ready to go but can’t get approved right away apparently. I feel like I read it two Sundays ago but time is really weird right now.
This sort of test is basically the only way Hollywood will be able to get back to normal any time soon and is something I’m really rooting for to happen.
1 Like
Here’s a quick chart to show what testing and positive percentage looked like on the Saturday of peak week (7/18) and today. That Saturday was just shy of being the highest Saturday by about 160 cases, but the one that was higher had about 30k more tests. There were roughly 22k more tests on July 18 than today. The cases on July 18 were 65,148 and the cases today are 56,469.
Testing and Positive Pct. Peak Week Saturday 7/18 vs. Saturday 8/15
| Tests | 7/18 | 8/15 | Pos. Pct 7/18 | Pos. Pct 8/15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Sat | Sat | ||
| Total Cases | 65148 | 56469 | 8.6% | 7.6% |
| Total Tests | 761771 | 739521 | ||
| AK | 2949 | 748 | 2.6% | 11.4% |
| AL | 11380 | 12033 | 18.8% | 10.6% |
| AR | 5508 | -400 | 0.0% | n/a |
| AS | 0 | 118 | n/a | 0.0% |
| AZ | 7023 | 9616 | 39.0% | 9.7% |
| CA | 123119 | 124513 | 7.5% | 10.1% |
| CO | 6434 | 6959 | 9.6% | 4.6% |
| CT | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a |
| DC | 3348 | 2911 | 2.4% | 1.4% |
| DE | 2147 | 1286 | 4.3% | 4.4% |
| FL | 51220 | 42160 | 20.2% | 15.1% |
| GA | 33128 | 18013 | 14.2% | 18.2% |
| GU | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | n/a |
| HI | 1791 | 2649 | 1.3% | 8.7% |
| IA | 1276 | 5837 | 14.5% | 14.8% |
| ID | 2186 | 2791 | 28.3% | 19.4% |
| IL | 46099 | 44414 | 2.8% | 4.1% |
| IN | 9820 | 11126 | 8.6% | 9.4% |
| KS | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a |
| KY | 7139 | 11334 | 8.1% | 5.6% |
| LA | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a |
| MA | 12246 | 22969 | 2.9% | 1.6% |
| MD | 12770 | 17379 | 6.5% | 14.5% |
| ME | 2508 | 2311 | 0.7% | 1.3% |
| MI | 30572 | 30628 | 2.4% | 3.5% |
| MN | 16451 | 10927 | 2.8% | 6.3% |
| MO | 12980 | 10572 | 7.4% | 10.7% |
| MP | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a |
| MS | 5821 | 8723 | 17.5% | 9.5% |
| MT | 1475 | 1075 | 7.1% | 11.0% |
| NC | 35169 | 25999 | 7.1% | 5.9% |
| ND | 2040 | 1542 | 5.6% | 7.9% |
| NE | 4955 | 3459 | 4.6% | 9.5% |
| NH | 0 | 1761 | n/a | 3.4% |
| NJ | 21116 | 31542 | 2.1% | 0.9% |
| NM | 8930 | 8551 | 3.6% | 2.0% |
| NV | 5530 | 4646 | 21.4% | 18.5% |
| NY | 69817 | 88668 | 1.1% | 0.8% |
| OH | 22312 | 22941 | 6.9% | 4.9% |
| OK | 10687 | 11175 | 8.6% | 8.1% |
| OR | 6598 | 1772 | 5.3% | 3.4% |
| PA | 13337 | 15995 | 5.7% | 5.3% |
| PR | 546 | 567 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| RI | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a |
| SC | 8618 | 8616 | 18.0% | 12.1% |
| SD | 1274 | 1435 | 5.7% | 6.6% |
| TN | 22980 | 17715 | 11.0% | 7.3% |
| TX | 75364 | 39635 | 13.5% | 20.8% |
| UT | 8434 | 5084 | 9.0% | 6.8% |
| VA | 12997 | 16968 | 7.2% | 5.4% |
| VI | 469 | 118 | 4.3% | 25.4% |
| VT | 1080 | 2880 | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| WA | 14483 | 800 | 5.2% | 100.0% |
| WI | 12477 | 11372 | 8.3% | 7.6% |
| WV | 2959 | 5544 | 3.8% | 3.3% |
| WY | 39 | 44 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Am I ponied here? Don’t remember seeing this.
1 Like
What do people think of this idea going around that what we really need is daily tests with near instant results that people can do at home even though we know they are less reliable?
Apparently not needing to part of the sample prep from the swabs has been a big limiting factor due to the availability of the reagents involved.
This will help a lot for concentrated activities like sports but I wonder if it will make much of a difference outside of private schools and “rich” suburbs. Can’t see either inner cities or rural communities being able to take advantage in any reasonable time frame.
Even then there is a lag between exposure and a positive test where there will be spread. This will help and if it’s “25%” better that’s big but it’s also not turning a 1 into a 0.
Your pony needs a seance. This was heralded as the “smoking gun” about airborne transmission. Of course this is all 100% stupid because it’s goddamn obvious and has been for A long while.
Science can’t get out of its own way sometimes.
1 Like
Viable virus collected from air >6 to 15 feet away from the patient. Who would have ever thought the virus could travel beyond the magical 6 foot tape line?
This idea has been what we’ve said we needed for months now. It just may finally be becoming a reality at some point in the nearish future…maybe.
Even with false negatives it’s 137849247x better than “temperature checks” for determining safety of being around others and could form the backbone of realistic plans to get closer to “normal” in the next few years.
I wonder if it has a high false positivity rate and a positive test means 14 day isolation if that won’t be an issue?
Yeah; it needs a low false positive rate because if people think they have it and they don’t, they’ll stop being careful 14 days later, which could be worse than not having the test in the first place.
I thought the issue with current ones was false negatives, not false positives, but haven’t seen definitive accuracy numbers because I haven’t seen a definitive instant test that is ready to go at this point.
1 Like
Will this new saliva test that needs to be sent to a lab for testing require the USPS to get it there? If so, I see one potential problem with this plan…
1 Like