There's an ARM Cortex-M4 with Bluetooth inside a Covid test kit
twitter.comThe Lucira test is in my opinion a bit more interesting:
https://aseq.substack.com/p/inside-the-lucira-check-it-covid
They include an STM32, but the instrument is performing an Isothermal PCR molecular test which makes the inclusion of a microcontroller a requirement.
Obviously throwing out electronics like this seems quite wasteful. But overall our society is fairly wasteful when it comes to disposable electronics.
The Cue testing devices are interesting. The Bluetooth, battery, and most of the interesting bits are all in a reusable device with a slot for single-use cartridges. The cartridges are fairly dumb (other than the chemical stuff I think there's just an i2c chip)
> They include an STM32
This might explain partly why they are all sold out :(
Hey man, cut me deep here. I need STM to get their stuff together and ship product. The next batch of product I ship is already at a loss because I’m buying from scalpers :(
I’m just lucky we’re a non-electronics business that shipes electronics parts. If we were an electronics company, I would seriously consider a year hiatus, or switch to software contracting for awhile.
Wow, that is wonderfully complex!
I do wish that there was an established recycling pipeline available for them though.
As a European: why are there chips in this? I just broke open mine and it looks like this: https://imgur.com/a/muz7FIy
I bought 50 of these 2 weeks ago. Were 3-4 euro a piece.
For reference, this is one specific type of test available in the US, there are other more common tests which are electronics-free.
There are some valid reasons for tests like this to exist. To quote later on in the linked Tweet thread [1]:
[1] https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1475254812816019456BTW it's easy to say this is wasteful, and it probably is, but just like with the pregnancy test, you should consider that there's three main problems that can affect the accuracy of lateral flow tests like this: 1. inconsistent lighting 2. incorrect timing 3. human error having a 2$ computer chip and 50 cents worth of plastic & lenses removes all those sources of error. And making it bluetooth removes a source of e-waste! it means it doesn't need to have a screen, it can just talk to your phone. for example, consider that a bit more than 1 in 12 people have some kind of colorblindness. Having a computer say "POSITIVE" or "NEGATIVE" is going to be easier to see then the uncertainty of "is that stripe red? can I just not see it?"Except the first 2 are examples of human error. You are supposed to follow the instructions, and the instructions tell you to carefully read the instructions which I have done with multiple 'manual' antigen tests. They're crystal clear. With regards to these 2 examples you can ensure decent lighting with a smartphone (torch) these days. Incorrect timing, can also be solved with a smartphone by setting an alarm (or just focusing on say letting 15 minutes pass as a matter of respect to the outcome and those possibly affected by it). We already got a swiss army knife in the form of a smartphone, we don't need another disposable technology (nevermind insecure technology).
While I was doing my test I read instructions carefully but then after few minutes of gathering courage to stab myself (surprisingly hard to do) in the finger I managed to mess the rest of the procedure up by putting buffer fluid, or blood, I don't remember, in the wrong hole.
There's no path for reusing the electronics, is the big issue here.
> And making it bluetooth removes a source of e-waste!
wait, so bluetooth is cheaper than paper?
Cheaper than paper? IDK.
But I have A product that I just did the math on. I was making a “dumb version“ that removed BLE and added two buttons. The BLE version would end up being cheaper. Of course this assumes that the Bluetooth software firmware is already completed, which for me it is.
Think how small they can produce chips now.
Personal data collection, probably. I cant imagine it is for the user's benefit that it uses bluetooth and requires an app, but it does let them hoover up your contact details and infection status. This probably sells > cost of the electronics.
There's probably a mindset of having to use IoT (or close enough) no matter how inappropriate the use-case is. Like how people try to find reasons to use a blockchain, or rewrite something in Rust, or host a kubernetes cluster.
A low-tech solution would be too boring or easy.
There are legitimate reasons for a test like this to exist, the linked author talks about this more a bit further into the same Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1475254812816019456
It’s for the Bluetooth piece. The optical sensor reads the result and the turns on the light and/or lets the phone know over Bluetooth.
Seems unnecessary, but if people want to buy it…
> Seems unnecessary, but if people want to buy it…
Considering that this is an article used once for a few minutes the environmental cost for production and deposition is high and society shouldn't tolerate ...
Once for this specific test. If you planned on buying a lot of tests and using them regularly, maybe you could find value in a BLE connection? IDK. That crosses into a different new normal line for me that I am uninterested in I think.
Otherwise, I agree, seems wasteful when you look at what had to happen to ship that product.
If you do mass testing the Bluetooth might be useful in theory, but you babe to make sure to protect the data well ...
The environmental cost of getting more people sick with covid is also high.
People decompose. Electronics don’t.
Yes, but one can test without full set of electronics in each test thingy ...
I'm wondering if they're subsidized, but the price in Germany at the supermarket hovers around 1€ each. I was really surprised to hear that these are not a thing in the US, any idea why?
Here in the NL they're about €2,50 each, so there may be some subsidizing going on in Germany (or we're getting ripped off for €1,50 per test).
Schools and food banks can hand out free self tests so there is definitely some kind of subsidizing going on here, but in a different way.
Surely someone would import them and sell for €2 and then someone else would sell them for €1.5 and then someone else would sell them for €1.2 if you were just being ripped off. Is that really the only reason you could think of?
lol here in brazil you can only find these in drug stores, and is arround R$100 (which would be arround 15 euro/17usd).
Keep in mind that R$100 means 10% of monthly minimum wage.......
The FDA has approved 13 test kits for at-home use with a self-collected sample, according to https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and...
Germany has approved a much larger number of test kits for use, per https://antigentest.bfarm.de/ords/f?p=110:100:4793921863454:::::. It was >50 as of August 2021 according to https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/08/te..., including from American companies that the FDA has not approved.
I suspect that the supply-restriction effects of the approval situation go a long way toward explaining the pricing differences...
these are available in the US. they retail for $20-30 for a pair. they were easy to get from October-ish through mid December and now they’re sold out everywhere because of people testing for holiday gatherings.
Because FDA does not allow companies to sell them.
They are a thing in the US as well.
Because the ones you get in Europe are made in China.
It's to hide the fact that inside, the test is just a piece of chemically treated paper that costs less than 1 EUR to produce. That way people don't get as mad when they have to pay $200 for them.
Nope. We just get overcharged.
Most likely because FDA required it.
Nordic is not really that cheap if you just want a Cortex-M4. You buy Nordic parts for their radios.
If you just want processing power, GigaDevices has an M4 at less than $1 last I checked. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work for the design we were working on as the standby power consumption wasn't great.
If you want bargain basement processors with connectivity, Qualcomm is still selling many of the old CSR chips. The low end chips went for <$0.50 in volume and the power consumption was often barely worth measuring. We used to chuck them into products every time every time I lost an argument with the hardware team about whether 10-15 cents of BOM cost is worth 3 months of painful bringup.
Are you using fcc approved modules with the csr chips or the bare chips? I'd be interested in a really cheap bluetooth capable microcontroller. I plan to use the nrf52805 for my next product due to the low cost.
Sorry if that came across as an endorsement. I'd go with the nordic modules instead because the documentation and support will be much better. The development costs of weird, cheap wireless chips isn't worth chasing marginal BOM optimizations. Just don't go to the other extreme and spend $40 on an Intel SoC for your wireless thermometer like I've seen others do.
I haven't worked with CSR modules since I left that job around 2017, but the latest vendor toolchains for some chips were still on GCC 3 (~2005) at that time. We were taking bare reels and doing certification ourselves if it matters though.
I don't think they wanted an M4 per se, but instead wanted a bluetooth radio to save on the cost of a screen. The Nordic chip just happens to be based around an M4.
IIRC Nordic has a M0 version with bluetooth radio--the BBC micro:bit and a few other maker boards used it. But perhaps it's not really available in cheap quantities anymore and a way overpowered M4 is what they got.
Yeah, those are the nrf51x line, this is the nrf52x line. It seems from the outside at least that Nordic is pushing the nrf52x hard even in price conscious designs. Even the micro::bit was respun for a v2 with a nrf52x also (including it's M4). Albeit I don't have much direct data on that.
Yes, the 51 is really old by now. The 52 line extends down as far as the tiny nRF52805.
The 51822 is not nearly as fun to work with as the 52s, e.g. current Apache Mynewt with NimBLE doesn't even fit into the 51's tiny flash, the 51 doesn't have systick, and so on.
I wonder why they didn’t use NFC. They could get away with a much simpler chip, or even a fully analog solution if they didn’t need the complexity of Bluetooth.
Seems like you could just about accomplish the same thing with a pair of NFC tokens, a photodiode, and some transistors. Basic components. Connect one of the two NFC chips to the coil depending on how much light is reflected off the test strip. When you scanned it with your phone the activated NFC chip would respond with a URL containing a unique ID which could be interpreted by the manufacturer.
One reason i can think is that NFC wasn't ubiquitous on non-premium phones a few years ago, unlike Bluetooth.
It still isn't ubiquitous. For example, the Moto G line of cheap Androids are popular, and most have no NFC.
iPhones only relatively recently started supporting nfc for non payment use cases. https://blog.nordicsemi.com/getconnected/native-nfc-support-...
Not all phones have NFC, especially cheap Android ones like Xiaomi, but every single one has Bluetooth.
Interesting how half of the replies to this blame Apple and half blame Android
Or if they are already using Nordic chips, slightly more expensive nRF52832 can also do NFC.
Because of apple.
I worked at a company that was using these chips to control doors. They're extremely cheap chips, but writing code for them is not pleasant. Documentation is lacking and the tools people use to write code for it suck. Props to the devs who helped put this together.
I write baremetal fw for those chips. No debugger, extremely bad stdlib which I rewrote, no qemu. Horrible modem interface. But still much more pleasent than Linux FW or raspi's.
They are cheap, last 10 years with a single battery, and do only what they need to do. Also secure. No crazy attack vectors. And easily symbolically verifiable. And I wrote tons of simulators and fuzzers for them.
Let me flip this around, I am looking for ways to improve testing, specially now that I am mostly remote. In your experience, what targets have a stress-free experience with qemu emulation?
Working on it in my github rurban/qemu-stm32 fork. Checkout supported platforms for qemu and better renode. There you also have debugging interfaces.
Stressfree qemu support was only for my even smaller avr targets, the 1281. But AVR is crazy compared to the Cortex-M4. We switched to arm completely, no avr's anymore. Anyway, no need for qemu or other emulators, when you can easily write simulators. You just throw in some mmaps, the simulated libc, the UART, and networking. Much better than emulators.
Your simulations sound super interesting, I'd love to read more if you're willing to write about it!
Not the parent, but I wrote a little bit about this here: https://www.jonnor.com/2017/03/host-based-simulation-for-emb...
The key thing is to make the majority of the code portable enough to run on a PC. I find the best way to do that is to keep things data-oriented, using Plain Old Data type data structures and pure functions as much as possible. Alternative view: isolate out any device-specific pieces, like I/O into as small and simple pieces as possible. When one takes this mindset one realizes that even things that are considered as "device specific", like device drivers usually have a lot of logic that can actually be separate from the I/O. And by having a swappable I/O backend (say for I2C) one can actually test the vast majority of this logic on a computer. One should also have an implementation of the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that is "host", allowing to run on a PC, potentially with virtual inputs and outputs. This allows to run essentially all of the firmware on a PC. If one uses a embedded-friendly test framework, like Unity, then one can also run the same tests that is used on the PC on the device - to make sure that there is no difference when ran on host vs device.
Unfortunately, the code from embedded device vendors is rarely amenable to this, so that code can end up as "untestable" under this scheme. For them portability" is only considered between their own hardware devices, not to a computer. Then one has to trust that they have done their own QA. Which is usually not that great - looking at you ST HAL....
That's a great article, thanks for pointing me to it :)
> Documentation is lacking and the tools people use to write code for it suck.
Okay, I'm going to ask "Compared to whom?"
Nordic has been one of the better BLE chip manufacturers in terms of documentation, in my experience.
Most places use Keil tools directly from ARM. So, if programming these sucks, so does programming most embedded Cortex M4 chips. (No argument. Keil sucks. However, that doesn't mean that Nordic sucks any worse than anybody else).
And now you can program Nordic chips using Visual Studio Code.
Sure, comparing BLE specifically. And Nordics chip / peripheral level documentation is fine, but their software stack documentation (at least as of 3 years ago when I was last working on BLE stuff) is fine at best. They released a new version of the API every 6-12 months with lots of backwards incompatible changes (a new major version every time...), referenced examples from previous API versions (but didn't port them to the new version), and added tons of new poorly documented compile-time config options to every API version.
All told I figured out how to make a reasonably complex chain of bluetooth devices work (largely by reading the source and comparing against old version API documentation to figure out differences), so it definitely could have been worse. But to imply that just because the documentation is BETTER than the competition that it is GOOD?
No. Its fine.
It kinda helps to have an EE background for anything embedded. Doing embedded stuff has always been a gritty experience since I started around 2000. I find Nordic tools fine, and they've been getting incrementally better. Either the VSCode plugin or Segger Studio works fine for development, and the devkits work fine.
Say what you will about the hardware, but ESP-IDF is the gold standard for me now
ehh… It is pretty easy to use but there's way too much bundled stuff in there, you're always under FreeRTOS, and Wi-Fi support is all proprietary blobs (but that's unfortunately the case with every embedded Wi-Fi chip… unlike Bluetooth LE with has multiple fully FOSS implementations)
I don't know what you mean by "way too much stuff", it's mostly use what you want. It's easy enough to disable any features you don't want with their sdk config stuff
They used to even ship a "No OS" SDK for the 8266, but the demand just wasn't there, FreeRTOS is pretty solid for the core competency of their product after all...
In contrast, embedded Rust is quite a pleasant experience on the nrf line, including the 52xx series.
nRF52s are definitely not extremely cheap, they're high-quality fully-documented dev-friendly chips with lots of onboard resources. If you want cheapest BLE, there's some utter crap from Dialog Semiconductor that comes with a proprietary SDK in ROM and one-time programmable (!!) memory for the application (external flash can be used in development).
And you DO NOT have to use the Nordic SDK, there are lots of better and fully FOSS options — Apache Mynewt, libopencm3, Rust nrf-rs…
Any chance I can reuse one of these boards given that I have a few of these test kits? Or are the tools so bad that it's not worth it?
An nRF52 dev kit is like $30. It’s probably not worth the time and aggravation to try to repurpose one of these COVID tests unless you’re really determined. Nordic is one of the better vendors - their tools and docs aren’t too bad.
You also do not have to use their tools. Use Rust with nrf-rs, or Apache Mynewt (with a fully open source BLE stack), or libopencm3, or…
At that point, why not just use something like the original SoC from the Raspberry Pi 1 and use the plethora of Linux dev tools available?
Really not the same beasts. The Cortex M4 microcontroller is self-contained with every peripheral it needs (including BT and wireless stack) and its power consumption is very small compared to a SoC.
Also, it's not booting Linux at all. For these simplish one-purpose applications, you don't want the overhead and it probably would need more than the 24k or RAM onboard the nRF52810.
They could be using Zephyr though as it supports the Cortex M4 (it's a linux-like RTOS that can be heavily customised).
Cost, power, board complexity, reliability.
Embedded development is much different than what a lot of developers are used to.
Also availability. The more basic the chip, the easier / faster it is to get 1k of them. (or to find a perfect/close match requiring minimal changes)
That's only a recent thing really.
No, short term and long term availability of a part in volume has always been a part of circuit design. The current situation has been a unique extreme of this, but buying a million count of an electronic part hasn’t ever been an arbitrary off the shelf affair. How many a distributor has for immediate shipping, the lead time for large quantities, and the end of life plans were always a consideration. Before though the problems you were trying to avoid were more like not delaying production for six weeks because a part was out of stock or whether you could keep building this board for the next ten years.
I would agree for million (depending on market segment, you could be talking straight with mfg then). But we were talking about 1k, a tiny quantity as far as production rounds go.
It's a recent thing on a world scale. But it's always been an issue and applies to anything you buy - the more sophisticated, the fewer items are stocked in warehouses. It's not that they wouldn't be available, it's that once you start ordering hundreds, the lead time will change from days to weeks at some point.
Hundreds is really a loose retail quantity if we talk about microcontrollers, the first real price break point is typically 1000pcs. Smaller quantities are cut and priced by distributors themselves.
In normal times, most products not marked as EOL would be available in tens of thousands with short lead times.
Nordic nRF5x chips has community Arduino support(which is very nice to me!) if that's what you want.
Having worked on automated ELISA equipment decades ago, it's kind of interesting to see this come full circle.
The earliest machines used a light source and color filter to try and get the signal from the finished enzyme sandwich. Then lateral-flow came along and it was up to a human to make the observation. Now we're back to the computer doing it again.
US paid $230M to have this device built.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/02/01/us-231m-deal-ellume-at...
They paid $230 million for 8.1 million devices and the building of a US based manufacturing facility capable of producing 19 million devices a month.
I can't help but imagine a parking lot full of Ferraris at their offices
Maybe I'm Elizabeth Holmsing it, but I'm thinking it could have been done for 1/50th that price while still paying people well and providing them the resources they need.
Am I missing something?
Money is remarkably adept at reducing red tape to ribbons.
I think this is a timeframe/certainty axis more than an efficacy/cost one.
This goes into a bit more detail. https://www.mcknightshomecare.com/ellume-receives-230m-gover...
So my followup question is: I have a few of these, can I do anything with them once I'm done with the test? Hook up to the headers and reprogram? What about the Binax test? Or any of the other "connected" ones?
Answering my own question: he gets there much later in the thread -- looks like single wired debug is available at a pad on the board.
probably not worth your time unless you're looking for an art project. you can get a devkit for dollars that has pins brought out and more flash and ram https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001593980172.html
Basically all those nRF5x products are Arduino compatible AirTags with a battery included. IIRC they also have an imprecise but low power, chip integral temperature gauge. Maybe a wireless interval thermometer might be a good start?
Yea I saw somewhere airtags are just Nordic chips? Kind of surprised because the airpod w1/h1 chips aren’t
I would guess either better margins or better low power performance for better battery longevity in the nRF 52.
Binax is just some cardboard and a strip, no chips.
Note: Hackaday discussion available at https://hackaday.com/2021/10/17/electronic-covid-test-tear-d...
FYI some of those Ellume brand tests were recalled: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/e...
The chip is $4. The test is much more expensive than that.
The expensive price of the tests is actually a whole different problem. For the last tests that I bought at Walgreens (InteliSwab) I paid around $25 for two tests.
Meanwhile I'm currently in Europe and as a consumer I can buy Antigen tests for around 3 Euro per test (would be less than 2 Euro if bought in bulk). As far as I know those prices are not subsidized.
Propublica has been covering this, the FDA has been throwing up barriers to rapid tests while Europe has been embracing them. One of the barriers is that "users are supposed to be able to execute the test without training " which I suspect is what's leading to the inclusion of optical sensors etc. https://www.propublica.org/article/this-scientist-created-a-...
Which is pretty much an impossible goal - the user still needs to be able to follow quite detailed instructions to get the sample, correctly mix in the buffer solution, and dose the correct number of drips. Sure, thats something 99% of people can do, but then 99% of people can see 1 or 2 lines on the test without the help of an app...
The Digi-Key price is $4. The direct price when buying millions of units will be a fraction of the Digi-Key price.
And it’s about half price @ 1000 units.
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these!
For those interested: I ported FreeRTOS 9 to an nRF52840 in my previous job. This family used a lot. It's in my Tado smart radiator knobs, in the AirTags.
I can only compare it to FreeScale chips, but one thing that pleasantly surprised me is the flexibility in pin-assignment. Instead of the pin-mux that we'd have to do on the MK24, I could just assign pins during usb/i2c init without any limitations. The SDK is quite elaborate, although sometimes a bit difficult to use in C++.
An any-to-any IO multiplexer turns out to be pretty large in silicon area. You're paying extra for that feature as opposed to devices where each pin has a choice of just say 3 functions.
For most users, they prefer to have the chips cheaper and spend an extra few minutes of engineer time figuring out which pins need to be hooked up to what.
I can see for smaller volume devices where engineer time dominates, and devices that you want to be really field reconfigurable, the all-to-all mux is worth it though.
Thanks for the insight! I didn't choose the nRF, it was a given. I believe it was chosen due to being similar to the MK24 (also an M4) and having Bluetooth. The chips ended going into wearables, and BTLE was seen as the way to configure/upgrade the devices.
funny there's a chip shortage for certain chips. yet here are disposable chips...
I don't get the worry about it being hackable. Sure, you could engineer the whole thing with crypto in mind from top to bottom. With trustzone on the chip and safetynet on the phons but what's that gonna achieve? The test is not done in a controlled enviroment anyways. People looking to cheat the system could simply get their friends to do their "hackproof" tests.
I can't believe even a fractional percentage of customers would find it useful to have wireless interaction with a disposable single-use test kit, compared to reading the result off of a passive testing strip. It would've been reedemable if they had sold the strips as a separate replacable product so that the electronic device could be fully utilized.
It might have its uses...If for privacy reasons, the testing subject is in a closed room and you want to make sure they report from the correct test.
What if the patient doesn't have a smartphone (or don't know how to pair/operate Bluetooth), or too many active test kits are lingering in the patient waiting room making it impossible to navigate all the devices? I don't see how this particular SKU would be a good fit for a clinic. Easier and cheaper to just give the patient a passive test strip they can use in their own privacy.
The point is that the patient might have a previous one and show that one instead as negative...or lie about the result...niche scenarios, but is this not an niche use case anyway?
Seems like unnecessary e-waste to me.
~$30 and they werent even good "Ellume Recalls COVID-19 Home Test for Potential False Positive SARS-CoV-2 Test Results" https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/e...
edit: was wrong about the test price. It should be $38.99 / ea test.
This is cool, and I enjoy foone's tweets about hacking around on embedded electronics you can buy at your local pharmacy. I just hope the unscrupulous don't have a field day with the potential spin this story and headline can have.
Also see this previous HN thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29637592 (Faking a Positive Covid Test (f-secure.com))
I just flew in to Minneapolis from Europe last night and they handed these out for free at the airport. Was really surprised to see the Bluetooth sign on the box.
So this is where all the chips are going during the shortage. Good to know we finally get some answers to that.
I would have understood an IoT widget for the purpose of contact tracing but for this instead? ...
Foone has specifically asked that their tweets not be submitted here.
So how long before someone starts buying up covid tests to strip these out again and resell to the supply chain challenged?
Buy a $40 test to resell a $2 chip. Genius.
They’ll make up for it in volume!
The tests are not cheap
Excellent. Just what the Dr ordered.
This is depressing. Single use disposable. Full of copper, gold, tungsten, halfnium. Will leach poison into the ground. Some of the most advanced technology of our age. Use it once, toss it in the trash.
Meanwhile the paper versions work just fine.
The optics on this seem to indicate that it is just a lateral flow test of some kind.
It's not even different. Instead of having to interpret a couple lines you have software interpret the strip and tell you over bt on your phone. So much tech for so little.
For an app that displays positive or negative, wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to use image processing to detect lines on the test?
Some tests do that but then you end up with a limited list of phones where the camera has been qualified. Better to go all the way to an eye-readable test.
In the Lucira test is a bit more justifiable it's a full molecular test, with built in controls, better accuracy than lateral flow. The optics is pretty neat too:
https://aseq.substack.com/p/inside-the-lucira-check-it-covid
Another view is that it's a great illustration of the relative price trends in the last 50 years. Healthcare has gone way up in price, and tech way down. What was a supercomputer 50 years ago is now a small fraction of the cost of a chemical test (which requires FDA approval).
We've made significant advancements in catalytic converters over the last decade and many waste management centers are able to incinerate much of the trash without the toxic emissions. They can then use magnets and eddy current separators to extract nearly all the metals out of the resulting ash.
This is new to me. But even if it's true, it still requires a lot of energy to produce the chip and then apply the waste management you mention.
The best waste is the one that does not exist.
In Europe a COVID19 quick test is 1-2 USD. This is 20-40 USD? For a device you only use once.
Why is there any kind of market for this?
Quick self-test is 8€ here in Belgium. Are we being ripped off?
Sounds like it.
Last I paid was 1.75 euro in DM (Germany). I remember buying them at 0.99 in LIDL.
In the UK, you can get free 7-packs of LFTs from most big pharmacies or online from gov.uk.
https://www.gov.uk/order-coronavirus-rapid-lateral-flow-test...
Although it looks like you need a (free) "collect code" at the moment (because we ran out a couple of weeks back, IIRC.)
https://test-for-coronavirus.service.gov.uk/collect-lateral-...
Prices have gone up sharply since the fourth wave in Europe. I remember seeing self-tests for 0.85 in summer. Now they‘re going for 3.00 bucks or so.
It is the new toilet paper ...
I've seen them at Colruyt for 3,50EUR, the rack is usually empty though, but I've heard most supermarkets sell them at this point.
A little googling around European online pharmacies says yes.
Is it because it is covered by health insurance? Might as well get the expensive one if I get it reimbursed ...
Home COVID tests are not generally covered by health insurance.
same reason there is a market for similar "high tech" pregnancy tests: people will pay more for something they feel is higher value, and price itself is an indicator of higher value.
If you read the full Twitter thread they explain that paper doesn’t work for everyone (the color blind and the incompetent, for example.) There is a use case, it just might not be for you.
The Abbott test has two lines separated… if two then positive, if one then negative. You don’t even need to tell the colors apart.
You do, however, need color vision to tell that the control line changed from blue to red (which the instructions tell you to do to verify that the test is working correctly)
Every Covid self test I've ever used had two red lines for postive and one red line for negative. Why are there tests out there that need color vision?
Every test I've done (provided for free on the NHS, btw) has just been two red lines.
The control line doesn't show up until the buffer solution has wicked along the test strip, so the verification is "does the line next to the letter C show up?"
Yes, but the parent was writing about the Abbott Labs BinaxNOW test, specifically (which I have also used).
The directions indicate to verify that the blue control line is present prior to adding the swab, and that the test should not be used if the blue line is not present.
You can verify this for yourself by downloading the official instructions here: https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download
That's not true for every test, the one I just used begins with no line and then a line appears. So you don't need color vision. You do still need vision, but it's hard to use a COVID test otherwise.
Sure, but the parent specifically referenced the Abbott test. And the Abbott test instructions tell you to discard and not use the test if the blue line is not present.
See pages 6 and 7: https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download
That is something your phone can do for you without the need for a disposable chip
The use case is valid but the solution is completely overkill.
You could do this with an analogue circuit and two LEDs.
> Will leach poison into the ground.
Electronics must not be disposed with general waste, I'd imagine all Western municipalities have special recycling programs for electrical devices. Not sure if they'd be that happy to receive used covid test kits though.
About 42% of e-waste is recycled in the EU and about 15% in the US. Even those numbers don't reflect reality since a large percentage of "recycled e-waste" is shipped off to poor countries where it may or may not be strip of some parts before being dumped.
They do, except many don't use them as much and is quite common to find electronics on the containers.
And they are crying about semiconductor shortage, and blah blah...
Why don’t we have biodegradable chips?
Because we don't tax cheap non-biodegradable things and don't really care about dismissal.
We could subsidize research into biodegradables, though ...
.
wrong thread methinks
It's a post from the same Twitter user that posted this teardown.
Do we have Doom running on it?
Depends if the test comes out positive or negative.
as mentioned in the thread it would need more RAM to do so