Oxford Scientists Develop 5-Minute COVID-19 Antigen Test 42
Scientists from Britain's University of Oxford have developed a rapid COVID-19 test able to identify the coronavirus in less than five minutes. CNBC reports: The university said it hoped to start product development of the testing device in early 2021 and have an approved device available six months afterwards. The device is able to detect the coronavirus and distinguish it from other viruses with high accuracy, the researchers said in a pre-print study. "Our method quickly detects intact virus particles," said Professor Achilles Kapanidis, at Oxford's Department of Physics, adding that this meant the test would be "simple, extremely rapid, and cost-effective."
Siemens Healthineers on Wednesday announced the launch of a rapid antigen test kit in Europe to detect coronavirus infections, but warned that the industry may struggle to meet a surge in demand. Although the Oxford platform will only be ready next year, the tests could help manage the pandemic in time for next winter. Health officials have warned that the world will need to live with coronavirus even if a vaccine is developed.
Siemens Healthineers on Wednesday announced the launch of a rapid antigen test kit in Europe to detect coronavirus infections, but warned that the industry may struggle to meet a surge in demand. Although the Oxford platform will only be ready next year, the tests could help manage the pandemic in time for next winter. Health officials have warned that the world will need to live with coronavirus even if a vaccine is developed.
You thought what? (Score:2, Insightful)
> All along - this is around the timetable we were told to expect based on previous pandemics.
This group is planning to have a test available around August 2021 or so. You were told to expect, and believed, that tests would take that long? And you're somehow proud of that?
> It's only basically Republicans that told us
I'm sorry to break the news to you, but in fact we've had tests since January. If you've been thinking there won't be tests until mid to late next year ... well I guess there's a reas
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we had tests.
But there is a difference if a test takes half a day and needs to be done in a lab while the test subject waits in quarantine for two days because of: mail!
Or if you have a 5 mins test. Which you actually could carry with you when flying to a foreign country, and apply on arrival in front of the immigration officers.
Bring your microscope (Score:3)
> Which you actually could carry with you when flying to a foreign country, and apply on arrival in front of the immigration officers.
Bring your microscope, and the $180,000 machine you'll need to buy. This isn't a reagent test.
Re: (Score:2)
This new test is a kind of "strip" test. You should read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you thought you saw in the CNBC article that led you to that conclusion, but I had posted actual scientific info, including the preprint itself, below for you
https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
You'll need to bring the machine that analyzes microscopic images.
If this were a strip with reagents on it, I wouldn't have told you it's not a reagent test.
Re: (Score:2)
PS if you don't feel like reading the paper, here's a short summary of their technique:
1. Apply dye to the sample
2. Photograph it through a special microscope that can see individual molecules https://oni.bio/case-study/vir... [oni.bio]
3. Send the microscope images to an AI
It's the whole "look at individual molecules in the microscope" thing that makes this about ten thousand times less useful than it could be. The paper notes they had two experts train them on how to use the microscope, which they borrowed for this
Re: (Score:2)
University of Oxnard [oxnardcollege.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's petty, there's actually collaboration all around to develop these things. There's never 100% british or US technology these days. Technology used by Oxford was developed in the US, Europe, and the rest of the world..
I could break that down of course but .. ok let's see .. it uses TIRFM which was pioneered at University of Michigan, flourophore labelled DNA from Germany, and machine learning for the image analysis .. well that's US to a large extent too and OK Canada too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just these days. We've got a very long history of collaborating with the British on scientific breakthroughs, going back to WW2. Let's not stop now.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you got trolled.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't need to become a partisan issue.
Tell that to Trump!
Re: (Score:1)
This is about a test, not a vaccine. We already have 15 minute test developed in the US. The problem is nobody in the world has the lab throughput to even get you results that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
See this: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] for an overview (from a UK journal) about where the USA is at in this. i.e. already shipping rapid tests, which are being used in e.g. some NY schools for twice-a-week screening of staff an students. i.e. not just a lab proof of concept.
Now all you need is probably some good leadership to get these out and used more widely.
Re: Oxford? (Score:1)
great science guys (Score:2)
It's always wonderful when you see a press release announcing some great scientific result, only there's no information whatsoever on what the science is or why we should believe this.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's detailed info (Score:5, Informative)
I guess MSNBC isn't the best source for science, eh. This has a tad more info, still for a general audience:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020... [ox.ac.uk]
The preprint paper is here:
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! If I could mod you up, I would.
Of course, reading this, I can see why they left the details out... Attaching fluorescent labels and running samples through a single molecule spectroscope is... well if it works out, that would be nice.
More virus please (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry. The UK government saw the great success of the USA government's attempt to spread the virus and said "hold my beer". Oxford won't be short of test subjects anytime soon:
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
Worthless report (Score:2)
I can detect covid-19 in under two seconds:
"Do I have covid?"
"Hmmmm. Yes"
Absolutely 100% accurate - everyone with the virus will get a positive result. I could probably get it below one second if I didn't do the "Hmmm" bit, but then it doesn't inspire as much confidence in the subject.
Tests for diseases have to have sensitivity and specificity quoted to know how useful they are. The test above has 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity and is of course completely useless, just like the article which quotes nei
Sensitivity 91.9%, specificity 90.9% (Score:4, Informative)
I found the answer (in the preprint), in about 30 seconds - sensitivity 91.9%, specificity 90.9%. OK, but not super-fantastic, and not much different to existing $5 commercially available rapid antigen tests (Abbott Laboratories plan to ship 150 million of their tests this month):
Sources:
https://www.bmj.com/content/36... [bmj.com]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I found the answer (in the preprint), in about 30 seconds - sensitivity 91.9%, specificity 90.9%. OK, but not super-fantastic, and not much different to existing $5 commercially available rapid antigen tests (Abbott Laboratories plan to ship 150 million of their tests this month):
OK. So if 5% of the population actually has Covid antibodies a +ve test means a 35% chance that you have those antibodies and a -ve test is about 99½% likely to be correct.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The test above has 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity
So not at all anything like the results of the actual science being done at Oxford. Congratulations. You're an idiot. I hope you made your mother proud.
Re: (Score:2)
The test above has 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity
So not at all anything like the results of the actual science being done at Oxford. Congratulations. You're an idiot. I hope you made your mother proud.
I see you're just learning English. Top tip: read the whole thing in context. If you're not sure what "context" is, why not ask an adult to help?
Meanwhile in the Netherlands... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uh huh, hundreds of tests out there being hyped for investors, most are worthless
What is this?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Antigen tests, like PCR tests (but unlike antibody tests) detect the presence of the virus itself. Antibody tests (of which there are various types) detect current infections (especially latter stage infections), or past exposure.
Strictly speaking, COVID-19 is the disease that some (but not all) people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 have (just like you can be "HIV Positive" before you get AIDS).
Re: (Score:1)
Uh (Score:2)
"Siemens Healthineers on Wednesday announced"
That they didn't appreciate being addressed the way Mickey Mouse would do.
Healthineers? Seriously?
Idiocracy has never seemed more prescient than right now.