RE:ANALYSIS OF SAUDI VAC RESULTSThis is a fair post, and I don't disagree with the theory. But the company will need a much larger study to prove it; 3/3 to claim a 100% sensitivity is statistically unacceptable in a clinical setting.
If the FDA award EUA on the back of this Saudi study, it will come with stringent user guidance (just like the Abbott test). I guess Sona will then go away and, in addition to trying to start selling the test as a standard symtomatic tool, attempt a larger study to prove true effectiveness in asymptomatic patients. This will be a lengthy and challenging clinical effort; as someone else mentioned recruiting enough individuals at the correct stage of infection is very time consuming.
The company needs to be very careful it doesn't fall between the cracks here. I absolutely agree with everyone that if the test picks up asymptomatic cases the opportunity is HUGE, but they will need to provide absolute clinical proof to the regulators. The specitivity data from the clinical study (90%) is also slightly concerning; a test of this sort should generally never return a false positive. 1/10 false positives isn't great.
I know many on here don't appreciate my posts, and to be honest I couldn't care less. My goal here is to provide scientific balance to the 'we're going to the moon' tools who are simply here to pump the stock. I want the test to succeed