Would be great if they could roll that out more broadly. Across UPitt is great, but need to apply it across the rest of the country too.LostInLA07 said:
REMAP sounds like a potential game changer.
BiochemAg97 said:Would be great if they could roll that out more broadly. Across UPitt is great, but need to apply it across the rest of the country too.LostInLA07 said:
REMAP sounds like a potential game changer.
Would also be cool if they could apply the similar AI to other issues in the future. Not necessarily for only for clinical trial drugs, but predicting which treatments work best for an individual, especially in a complex disease such as cancer or a multifaceted ER presentation.
Reveille said:
Today's post!
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2665433577072916/?sfnsn=mo
Chase said:Reveille said:
Today's post!
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2665433577072916/?sfnsn=mo
My sister's hospital in Tyler started doing antibody testing Wed of this week so some are doing it. I don't know much about this stuff but was told this Thurs and thought it wpuld be of interest to you.
PCR?murse said:
I work in surgery so I'm not in inpatient care anymore but we, Christus, are supposed to have a rapid PCR and rapid antibody test. The patients I've seen have had results back at least the next day instead of the week it was taking before.
PCR = Polymerase Chain Reaction, or a method to quickly make millions of copies of a particular strand of DNA.Player To Be Named Later said:PCR?murse said:
I work in surgery so I'm not in inpatient care anymore but we, Christus, are supposed to have a rapid PCR and rapid antibody test. The patients I've seen have had results back at least the next day instead of the week it was taking before.
Player To Be Named Later said:
So a test to see who currently has it, or similar to antibodies test to see who had it?
Totally agree. Plus a fast test for antibody showing your immune.Player To Be Named Later said:
Thanks, an accurate rapid test would be a game changer IMO. Especially if HCQ shows any kind of legitimate hope when used early.
That is probably very realistic and that would still be a huge number as only 0.17% has tested positive so far. If we have 10% that would definitely slow this disease down. It would not give us herd immunity as that will likely not occur to 60-70% but it would go a long way towards slowing the spread. Thus, making things significantly safer for many people. I am sure some statistics major could run the numbers on that. So that is not all bad, combine that with all we have learned about treating this virus and it should make you feel a little better.Big Al 1992 said:
Interesting that Dr Gottlieb said today that once they have widespread antibody testing - data shows that he only expects 5-10% of entire US population will have it the antibodies in their system - contradicting what a lot of us have thought - that a lot of people are gonna find out they had it and already have the antibodies. If only 5% are "immune" that would stretch this thing further out, correct?
AggieAuditor said:
I think so. There is no other option. I don't think we have the stomach for letting people get it and developing herd immunity. We just need to really really hope we get some luck and nail down a vaccine that works, and soon.
That is very valid point. What is most important is the percent in your area rather then the whole United States! And from what we are seeing New York and New Jersey may have a huge amount with antibodies while here in Texas it could be very low.Bruce Almighty said:
10% may slow the disease down as long as 90% of those aren't all in the NE.
what is he basing this on? he states that we don't have widespread antibody testing but then speculates on antibody distribution based on what 'data shows'.Big Al 1992 said:
Interesting that Dr Gottlieb said today that once they have widespread antibody testing - data shows that he only expects 5-10% of entire US population will have it the antibodies in their system - contradicting what a lot of us have thought - that a lot of people are gonna find out they had it and already have the antibodies. If only 5% are "immune" that would stretch this thing further out, correct?
helpful. thanks.k2aggie07 said:
You can estimate from genetic testing (really inexact) and a time+distance model of spread (also inexact). I didn't see what he said directly but he's probably saying those kind of data tell us something, blood test will be the way to get a better estimate.
Actually don't need to do the gel thing anymore. The quantitative PCR machines have florescent tags and can measure the amount of amplified strands at each cycle, thus generating a curve to tell you how many copies you started with. The really cool ones use multiple florescent tags so you can monitor several different products in the same well.Badace52 said:Player To Be Named Later said:
So a test to see who currently has it, or similar to antibodies test to see who had it?
Currently has it... PCR looks for viral RNA.
Edit: to be more precise, PCR replicates DNA so I assume this test is actually at RT-PCR which reverse transcribes (RT) DNA and then a polymerase chin reaction (PCR) multiplies that DNA into millions of copies that can then be detected using the molecule's known molecular weight and diffusion distance through a gel substrate.
murse said:
Christus Trinity Mother Francis, I think other Christus hospitals may be doing it as well.
The whole thing seemed like a big privacy issues to me initially, but some deeper analysis, Google/Apple's implementation is fairly reasonable from a privacy standpoint. Your phone would receive a code from everyone you come in close proximity to. If someone tests positive, they are added to the database of known infections, and your phone checks the database periodically and looks to see if you have been in proximity to anyone on the list during the time they were infected.emando2000 said:
Contact Tracing System
Do we really think this is the way to go?
