Hi all,

Real quick response.

The tests are designed to only test for SARS-CoV-2, we've trialed them against other coronaviruses and common viruses in general. Will differentiate.

Will reveal tech on swab, but it's not the swab itself, it's combined with a reactive reagent in the kit to show clear results.

Test differentiation is clear to medical professionals, but perhaps not general public, this product is only to support professionals. We are in development of a cheap and rapid antigen test that can detect ASAP before symptoms and buys us a few days headstart. It's coming.

Testing for antibodies is still very important as people continue to shed a viral load post recovery in many cases and this should be a clear enough reason for that person to enter isolation of some description.

Working the hardest with what we have and will keep moving forward.

Thanks for your interest and support!

This looks again like scam. A few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22641946

Antibody tests are not what we need now.

What we need are PCR tests...

There is literally NOTHING to be found about "rapidward" before 2 days ago.

I'm very skeptical to your added value, and not just a middle man with a marketing team, I don't care that it's non-profit.

You got 2 directors, a head of marketing, a head of Comms & PR, and a social media impact advocate...

I really wish people would develop some terminology to differentiate b/w the antibody screen and the viral test. A cheap and rapid viral test would significantly change the course of the pandemic but this is not it.

Can someone more experienced with clinical work give their thoughts on the sensitivity and accuracy of this test? The group's paper reports:

>sensitivity was 88.66% and specificity was 90.63%

My understanding is that this test will miss 12 in every 100 covid-19 infected individuals, and it will return a false positive for 10 in every 100 patients.

My intuition says this is more than acceptable for a rapid test. But I would love to see the opinion of someone with some clinical experience.

COVID-19 diagnostic tests included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for legal supply in Australia

https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-diagnostic-tests-included-ar...

Advice re Legal supply of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in Australia

https://www.tga.gov.au/legal-supply-covid-19-diagnostic-test...

There was another thread about someone at a University making a testing kid and there were replies of scientists explaining all the materials needed.

My question about these. This one specifically says it tests for "COVID-19 IgM / IgG" anti-bodies. Could these kits also test positive for other non-SARS-cov2 Coronaviruses in the family, or are they accurate enough they only test for SARS-cov2?

There are many companies coming out with antibody test kits. They're useful, but not for diagnosis. They're for telling who's had the disease and is probably now immune. Virus negative and antibody positive should indicate that someone is no longer infected, now protected, and need no longer isolate. Hopefully.

If we have the virus dna, why can't we just have a pcr or similar kit to home test a swab? Someone can make their own pcr for $25 and synthesize significant segments of cov2 for a couple hundred dollars. I don't understand why cov2 testing is so difficult.

A small Belgian company has developed a very similar test kit. Its test is also claiming a result in 15 mins with around 60% sensivity.

The test in question has been fast tracked and approved by European regulations.

Here is their product sheet: https://www.corisbio.com/pdf/Products/SARS-COVID-19_20200324...

Here is their page: https://www.corisbio.com/Products/Human-Field/Covid-19.php

It seems to be quite similar but on this one you can see their test results and how effective it is.

Evaluation 1(n=99),95%,confidence interval:

-Sensitivity,60%,(40.7 to 76,8%)

-Sensitivity threshold,85.7%,on sampling with CT under 25(62.6 to 96.2%)

-Specificity,100%,(93.4 to 100%)

-Positive predictive value,100%,(78.1 to 100%)

-Negative predictive value,85.2%,(75.2 to 91.8%)

-Agreement,87.9%(87/99)

Evaluation 1(n=1 32),95%,confidence interval:

-Sensitivity,60.3%,(48.1 to 71.3%)

-Sensitivity threshold,76.7%,on sampling with CT under 25(61 to 87.7%)

-Specificity,98.3%,(89.7 to 99.9%)

-Positive predictive value,97.8%,(86.8 to 99.9%)

-Negative predictive value,66.7%,(55.7 to 76.2%)

-Agreement 77.3%(102/132)

It was developed by the ULB university in Brussels. It has been tested on 250 patients in two of Belgian's main university hospitals.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/1027...

This company seems to have a history of producing such tests (for Ebola, Influenza and other pathogens) and there are numerous pubmed publications about them...

Why does this company sell N95 masks as well? For a company selling 3 products that's a strange combination - unless this company is just some sort of distributor. In the latter case, why is this news?

There's been a cheap, 10 minute antibody (ELISA?) test kit from SureScreen for sometime. It only works after someone develops antibodies.

For initial infection, rtPCR is the gold standard and takes at least 45 minutes as of writing.

https://www.surescreen.com/products/covid-19-coronavirus-rap...

What material/chemical is on the test kit cotton swab that can determine if you Covid-19 based on a saliva sample? How does that work?

One suggestion: put figure 1A from the test kit study on your page in huge / reactive size. Many stakeholders concern themselves with the mechanism of the test — if you make it easy for them to know how it works, then they’re more likely to buy. Way to go

Look at the “our team” section. No one on the team has any medical or biological experience. If they did, I’d be researching them further and contacting them independently to verify. But there’s no one worth following up. Flagging this as a scam.

This is probably a scam, but I'm on the look out for the reason why the market went up like this this week. It's either the typical bounce, or there is some information to come that insider traders moved on.

Chinese Bioeasy also offers those, Spain and Poland tried using them, instead of 80% sensitivity its more like 20-30%. Works if you are willing to burn 5 tests per person.

Oh yes, TechCrunch and Yahoo! News, the high standard of medical test reporting