(Photo : Photo by cottonbro from Pexels) Standford University works on getting coronavirus antibody tests ready for public use within two months.

As far as COVID-19 is concerned, many people could be silent carriers of the coronavirus and not know it. As of now, testing of the virus is mainly targeted on individuals already displaying severe symptoms. Because of this, a lot about the asymptomatic carriers of the virus is still unknown. 

A team from Stanford University, led by Dr. Scott Boyd, has worked around the clock for two weeks on test development, hoping to offer some answers soon. The test involves validating a history of infection using negative and positive patient samples. It is already being offered to Stanford Health Care workers.

Standford is currently able to test 500 samples per day but aims to expand the manufacture of the antibody tests to be ready for public use within two months. The serological test detects protective antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's bloodstream, rather than the source itself. The analysis reveals whether a person has been previously infected, indicating that the individual may be immune to future infection.

Dr. Thomas Montine, professor and chair of pathology at the Stanford School of Medicine, however, shared their struggle regarding the availability of the unique robots they use to run the tests. He claims that they are hard to buy, and the number of such robots is only limited. 

Read Also: COVID-19 Super-spreaders: New Study Shows Coronavirus is Twice as Infectious Than Previously Thought

Knowledge is Power: Antibody Tests Have a Lot to Offer

Measuring the antibody levels in those who have not displayed severe symptoms to the virus will help to determine how common mild infections are in the general population. If the antibodies happen to be protective, it could imply that some people could care for sick loved ones without the fear of being re-infected.

Furthermore, it could mean that some people could return to jobs earlier or safely exit the quarantine scene once their symptoms have tapered off.

For two weeks, 69-year-old Ron Simi of Orinda experienced symptoms of the coronavirus. He sought virus testing at Kaiser on April 2, 7, and 11th, but his results came back negative. He reports that if the test turned out positive after surviving through the symptoms, knowledge about having had the disease after surviving the symptoms would cause him a sense of relief as he knows he would not be likely to contract the disease again due to immunity. 

Mary Tilson, a resident of Berkeley, also shared in an interview that if tests were to reveal she didn't have the disease, it would properly guide her in constructing a smart behavior plan when the state's strict shelter-in-place order is slowly abated. However, if it turns out that she previously contracted the disease, yet made it through, knowledge about it would be a 'superpower' as she claims she can go outdoors with ease instead of fearing a death threat. 

Different From Other Antibody Tests

Contrary to current diagnostic tests for COVID-19, which detect genetic material from the virus in respiratory secretions, this specific test searches for antibodies in the blood's plasma to provide clues about a person's immune response to an infection.

The study was launched on April 6, 2020, at Stanford Health Cre. The antibody test by Boyd's team claims to differ from an externally developed analysis that Stanford researchers recently used in a "prevalence study" to identify the scope of the virus in Santa Clara County.

The experts at Stanford are applying to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an "Emergency Use Authorization," which speeds up the process of approval. As of the present, only one test, produced by the Research Triangle Park, N.C., company Cellex, is already approved and being rolled out for use in select groups.

Oregon's Kruse prays to discover that many have already had the disease and are already immune. He added that if that is the case, then it would be possible that we can now move forward. 

Also Read: Having An Inaccurate Test is Worse Than Not Having at All, Says US FDA