It was within the quote.It appears my previous post disappeared. Let's start again.
Olight also makes a 1xAA UV light. About $35. I don't recall the wavelength however.
Hey Ash, you click on "reply" with the arrow next to it.
It was within the quote.It appears my previous post disappeared. Let's start again.
Olight also makes a 1xAA UV light. About $35. I don't recall the wavelength however.
Ah, thanks!It was within the quote.
Hey Ash, you click on "reply" with the arrow next to it.
No, no, positively no. Much of the concerned world has been focused on the shiny, bright, new PCR technology dismissive of old-school antigen-antibody tests. Yes, I'd say that most of the lateral flow tests of today are inferior to well-done PCR tests, but not always. Monoclonal antibodies are often lower affinity than those derived from sera, but there have been improvements if monoclonals must be used. Even at that, antigen-antibody reaction based tests are a mature technology and molecular nucleic acid tests have a lot of room for improvement so they may get to a point where they are always more "accurate" and not need a laboratory.Rapid Antigen tests are less accurate than laboratory tests,....
So true! It's okay though, Vinh at Sky Lumen is going to make me a light with a 365nm emitter.WARNING: Inova specifies the X5 as "365-400nm." You do NOT want to guess regarding the actual wavelength when using it for a for a medical test! If the test specs call for 365nm, using anything other than this could cause a false negative result which could be dangerous.
A good antigen test is probably better than a PCR at detecting whole virus - ie infectiousness, but a PCR is the gold standard in sensitivity as they pick up partial SARS-CoV-2 virus. There have been 25-30 home use rapid antigen tests approved for use in my region, but only 5-6 have been shown to be in the high sensitivity bracket. The tests we have are considered to be 93-97% accurate when COVID symptoms are present, but only 50-60% accurate in asymptomatic people. Frequency of tests also factors into practical accuracy.No, no, positively no. Much of the concerned world has been focused on the shiny, bright, new PCR technology dismissive of old-school antigen-antibody tests. Yes, I'd say that most of the lateral flow tests of today are inferior to well-done PCR tests, but not always. Monoclonal antibodies are often lower affinity than those derived from sera, but there have been improvements if monoclonals must be used. Even at that, antigen-antibody reaction based tests are a mature technology and molecular nucleic acid tests have a lot of room for improvement so they may get to a point where they are always more "accurate" and not need a laboratory.
Glad to hear this! Even if you wind up getting basic UV lights with the test kits, you'll be able to compare both types of lights knowing that they both produce the correct wavelength, just different power levels. This will give you a good sense of whether the test indicators are highly sensitive to variations ini optical power levels.So true! It's okay though, Vinh at Sky Lumen is going to make me a light with a 365nm emitter.