5 ms·
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,
by billiontoone 6y ago
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.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zepto 6y agoYou are downplaying the value by saying they will be useful in the future, rather than now. This is not so. They are valuable right now.
- mrkurt 6y agoFor 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.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zepto 6y agoAnswering questions about immunity is absolutely critical right now. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532754-600-can-you-catch-the-coronavirus-twice-we-dont-know-yet/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532754-600-can-you-... https://www.ksbw.com/article/new-study-investigates-californias-possible-herd-immunity-to-covid-19/32073873 https://www.ksbw.com/article/new-study-investigates-californ...