Dismissing the value of serological testing seems like a self-serving move.
Such tests are immediately of very high value because they allow us to understand immunity to Covid-19, and to actually validate the estimates of cases amongst those who haven’t sought treatment.
These are both of huge value regardless of the percentage of the US population estimate to have previously contracted Covid-19.
By all means market your test which seems like an awesome contribution, but please don’t do so by devaluing other important tools.
[edit: the parent post has been edited to be less dismissive without acknowledgement since I made this comment]
[edit: looks like I’m wrong about the post being edited. Sorry for that. I stand by everything else I say here:
Serological tests are useful and needed right now, not at some future stage. It’s not hard to google to verify this, and it’s irresponsible to downplay the value of a test we need now.]
I don't think we are in any way undervaluing the serological tests. A great serological test would be very useful. However, because of the indirect measurement, they tend not to be very sensitive or specific, so it is fair to say that they become more important not at the peak of the pandemic but at the post-pandemic period.
By the way, as a company, we really don't have much to gain from this test. If it does not get adopted, we'll go back to building our core business which has been growing 100% quarter over quarter. We have poured resources into the current development, because it is the right thing to do. No investor in our Series B round will take into account any non-recurring sell-almost-at-cost revenues that we get from a once-in-a-century pandemic.
For what? "Google for answers" isn't very helpful. It sounds like they're saying serological tests are valuable, but not viable for immediately testing a large population.
Part of the problem with serological testing is false positives. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the tests available may have false positive rates on the order of 0.5% to 2%
If only 1% are infected, and the false positive rate is 1%, it's quite hard to determine what the test result actually means. On the other hand, some places like New York City are already at 0.7% per-capita known positives, and they're not even able to test everyone with symptoms. Their true infection rate could very well be 10%, which serological testing could confirm.
Yes, which is why a better serological test would be extremely useful, the sooner the better. In no way does this undermine the value of BillionToOne’s test, but it is irresponsible for their CEO to be saying that serological tests are not useful yet when they are.
Serological tests are useful and needed right now, not at some future stage.
It takes about a month before an antibody test is accurate in someone who has had a virus, so using them now would only detect cases where the person had the virus in early March. That limits the value of serological testing considerably.
Such tests are immediately of very high value because they allow us to understand immunity to Covid-19, and to actually validate the estimates of cases amongst those who haven’t sought treatment.
These are both of huge value regardless of the percentage of the US population estimate to have previously contracted Covid-19.
By all means market your test which seems like an awesome contribution, but please don’t do so by devaluing other important tools.
[edit: the parent post has been edited to be less dismissive without acknowledgement since I made this comment]
[edit: looks like I’m wrong about the post being edited. Sorry for that. I stand by everything else I say here:
Serological tests are useful and needed right now, not at some future stage. It’s not hard to google to verify this, and it’s irresponsible to downplay the value of a test we need now.]