since many are asking: the article did not provide details about the exact method. In the article, they talked only about pools of 5 but that would not allow a 10x scale factor. So I assumed pools of 16 in my Tweet. Maybe @CiesekSandra can share more details.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I guess the "pooling strategy" is important for the scale factor. I live in a household of 4. If we would test we would not even really care who tested positive since we then would assume we all get it anyway. So it is all or none anyway.
Show this thread -
important note
and in addition, there might be practical, logistical, organizational reasons why this might not happen after all.https://twitter.com/jwildeboer/status/1245070683111071745 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Smart.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Damn. That is smart and no brainer. Has this been applied to the med testing field before?
-
Multiplex PCR is common, not sure this much testing has been done at such scale so probably not been needed before.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting indeed. But to find 1 positive in 16 requires 9 tests, so I guess the 10x improvement comes from testing a lots of negative batches. Also, how easily can the swab create batches that can be expanded to 5 samples?
-
Where did you get 9 from? I make it 4 with a binary search? But maybe my maths is bad?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Dutch are aiming at.. 29k by 1 week. Presently they are at 4k a day. Now check the
#NL stats (3th in mortality rate per capita after Italy & Spain
). Then you'll see why testing is so important.. -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.