A lot of great info coming in! I think it' s good to have different viewpoints.

 

I want to address one in particular right now, especially after our dear HC' s Facebook post. The misconception I want to question is: RT-PCR is superior in sensitivity / accuracy to serology tests such as Biolidics' , therefore there is no or very limited market for serology tests.

 

As a side note, I think HC' s post was quite clear in her explanation and concerns. But, she was looking at it from Singapore' s perspective, where we conduct maybe 3,000-5,000 tests a day. At those low volumes (and considering how small we are), a 100% PCR approach may be viable. We can and should demand for 100% accuracy for each test. It' s a different story when you have to test 100 million a week. Furthermore, a PCR test and a serology tests serve different functions.

 

Back to the main point. Yes, PCR testing is more sensitive and accurate in diagnosing Covid than serology tests. No one is arguing about that. You look at Biolidics' marketing materials, they are not trying to hide that.

 

One of the world' s leaders in PCR testing is Abbott. In fact, Trump even launched their ID Now, which is a point-of-care PCR test (I' m not going to touch on the reported problems with regards to IDnow' s accuracy and availability for now there are quite a few issues, but not sure how serious.). So, if (a) PCR is more accurate than serology tests and (b) it can be available outside a central lab, directly at poc and (c) is at a comparable price, then these should be sounding Biolidics' death knell, right?

 

So why is Abbott trying to ramp up production of their own serology tests from 1 million tests to 20 million tests in June?

 

 

If it' s a binary decision - you use either PCR or serology test - then why is one of the world' s leader trying to increase production of a useless product by 2000%? Especially when they reportedly own the best diagnostic tools available now? This is a huge infrastructure investment.

I' ll assume that Abbott has done their market research and won' t blindly spend hundreds of million to manufacture millions of useless products. HC is trying to frame it as a choice between speed vs sensitivity.  It is not. Different markets, different use cases.

 

My humble conclusion: There is a very big market for serological covid tests.

 

Note also that Abbott' s serology test is done in the laboratory i.e. it' s not point-of-care. That' s not relevant for now because the point here is that there is a big market for both PCR and serology testing. Biolidics has the advantage of speed and ease of use, but must prove that there is not a sizable trade-off in terms of accuracy.

 

Of course, the following argument would be, once Abbott floods the market with their 20 million serology tests / month, then Biolidics will die. I don' t think this will be true because US needs 500 million tests / month (assorted tests, not only serology tests). Even if Abbott can manufacture 100 million tests/mth, it still won' t be enough. And that' s a huge IF.

 

In any case, I don' t think anyone is saying that Biolidics will beat Abbott, Roche et al and be a market leader in the industry just because they have this test. But Biolidics will make a very tidy sum provided that they play their cards right.

 

Just sharing my 2 cents rationale from the available info so far to stimulate discussion. You might interpret it differently. I do believe that the nuances are important.