HN user

virusduck

266 karma
Posts2
Comments165
View on HN

There is no "since 2022"--they have performed at relatively the same level to date. They just are not perfect and are unlikely to prevent the kind of non-symptomatic exposures people have, but in most cases, they are good to quickly differentiate a random sore throat from a COVID-related one.

Reminds me of that age old question... We find all these dinosaur fossils in mines for metals and fuel. It makes you wonder if they were just another bunch of animals, what were they all doing mining for industrial materials?

Total off topic, but I followed the link to read about the Coconut Effect. Not looking at the URL, I ended up about 10 tabs deep before I realized it was friggin tvtropes!! I haven't been over there in a while, but I'm glad to see that site still has that effect on people.

I've got a Laserjet from the 90's still kicking. It's wireless too with a RPi Zero W and a USB<->Parallel cable. Generic toner cartridges are cheap and available everywhere. Only issue is that the rubber on the runners need a refresh.

No. qPCR is, well, quantitative, so it gives more information. Additionally, it requires less pipetting, and the data is easier to report. All of these things make it more desirable for diagnostics.

False negative rate maybe?

In general, titers of the virus in NP swabs should be high enough to withstand 10, maybe 20-plex pooling. However, as you allude to, there are plenty of other effects that can influence PCR. If there is one sample, for example, that contains a PCR inhibitor, like heme, it may then inhibit all the samples it is pooled with.

Additionally, swabs are not just swabs of virus, they also pull of highly variant amounts of bacteria and human material. These things may also affect the efficiency of PCR.

If you look at it another way, groups that have a handle and understanding of a particular tool may have insight into how that tool can be used to answer a biological question. I don't think there is anything really wrong with that, but grants should be denied if they aren't proposing ways to move the field forward.

There are tons of mouse labs, however some have specialized mice or mouse systems. There are also other labs that specialize in other animal systems. These systems are nontrivial to switch between for many reasons, which I think you acknowledge. It is useful for the field in general to have access to the results of a variety of research tools that every individual wouldn't necessarily have access to.

To be clear, MERS-CoV has not had sustained human-to-human transmission as of yet, rather repeated, smaller transmission pockets. Also, dromedary camels carry it and repeatedly introduce it into the human population.

I don't see anything in the methods about potential crossreactivity with NL63, OC43, or HKU1 coronaviruses. Presumably this was done by the company, but crossreactivity is an extremely important control when it comes to this type of test. It is common, and if it's not vetted thoroughly, you may be measuring something else completely.