Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oxford Scientists Develop 5-Minute COVID-19 Antigen Test

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

  • Oxford have to ask China to release more virus, so that they will have something to test with next year.
  • 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

    • by sidetrack ( 4550 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @05:02AM (#60613992) Homepage

      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]

      • by nagora ( 177841 )

        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.

      • Education is a very important thing in the modern world. But I am more accustomed to using such material as https://edubirdie.com/disserta... [edubirdie.com] for education, which stores a lot of knowledge and helps students. Thanks to this site, all my grades have become as high as possible, for which I am extremely grateful to them.
    • 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.

      • by nagora ( 177841 )

        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?

  • Detection via an electronic nose / breathalyser within 30 seconds: https://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws... [rijnmond.nl]
  • So what is this nonsense about a COVID-19 test or an antigen test? their different things
    • by sidetrack ( 4550 )

      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).

  • "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.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...