General Corona virus updates

[Rambo John J]

Exactly why people have been responding to you the way they have lately.

If you want to discuss we can...playing hard to get is getting boring.
Simply don't respond to me at all if that is how you feel. I care not.

Bottom line is the article was clear...it linked science...I wanted to discuss the science...you won't discuss the science.

The End

 

[Deleted member 1]

Hanging your hat on PCR cycles represents arguing about chronology more than it represents arguing about totality of cases.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Do you think 35-42 cycles is a proper amount? or

What's the goal?

 

[Deleted member 1]

Bottom line is the article was clear.

The article suggests not contact tracing those people. I agree.
But you seem to be expanding the conclusion.

 

[ThatOneDude]

If you want to discuss we can...playing hard to get is getting boring.
Simply don't respond to me at all if that is how you feel. I care not.

Bottom line is the article was clear...it linked science...I wanted to discuss the science...you won't discuss the science.

The End

I want to know if you even understand the science (this is important), so far you have demonstrated you do not.

 

[Rambo John J]

The article suggests not contact tracing those people. I agree.
But you seem to be expanding the conclusion.

I don't think they should be contact traced either...I don't think they should count as current cases either.
That is my point, overall case numbers are overblown IMO.

Hospitilizations and deaths are what I think we should be paying attention to the most...that is also just my opinion

 

[ThatOneDude]

I don't think they should be contact traced either...I don't think they should count as current cases either.
That is my point, overall case numbers are overblown IMO.

Hospitilizations and deaths are what I think we should be paying attention to the most...that is also just my opinion

Why do you think those things?

 

[Rambo John J]

Hanging your hat on PCR cycles represents arguing about chronology more than it represents arguing about totality of cases.

How about we "hang our hat" on a different test altogether?
Is that possible?

 

[Rambo John J]

Why do you think those things?

Because they are likely not contagious.

 

[ThatOneDude]

How about we "hang our hat" on a different test altogether?
Is that possible?

Why don't you like this test?

 

[ThatOneDude]

Because they are likely not contagious.

What makes you believe that? How does that correlate to the cycles?

 

[Rambo John J]

Why don't you like this test?

I read a quote from a doctor...You and I aren't in a lab so we can't speak on it personally...Your wife is a scientist and she likely learned from other scientists and doctors...So this doctor's words should hold some weight.

"Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said."

Also Kary Mullis, the PCR test's inventor would and did disagree with it's use in this application.


I merely think it is worth discussing, if you do not then that is fine and you can move on.

 

[ThatOneDude]

I read a quote from a doctor...You and I aren't in a lab so we can't speak on it personally...Your wife is a scientist and she likely learned from other scientists and doctors...So this doctor's words should hold some weight.

"Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said."

Also Kary Mullis, the PCR test's inventor would and did disagree with it's use in this application.


I merely think it is worth discussing, if you do not then that is fine and you can move on.

This is a discussion....

 

[Rambo John J]

This is a discussion....

Yes it is, and I frequently engage in them.

Pardon me for not always engaging you in an honest discussion...your tendency to incessantly troll most of my content(lately) and posts has led me to be hesitant to be honest or willing to do so.

I understand it is your form of humor but it loses the funny sometime in my perspective.

Carry on.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Yes it is, and I frequently engage in them.

Pardon me for not always engaging you in an honest discussion...your tendency to incessantly troll most of my content(lately) and posts has led me to be hesitant to be honest or willing to do so.

I understand it is your form of humor but it loses the funny sometime in my perspective.

Carry on.

I'm just responding in the same manner you respond. You;ve changed my outlook with youtube videos and I have seen the light. Is this not what you wanted?

 

[Rambo John J]

What makes you believe that? How does that correlate to the cycles?

Well if it is picking up minute remnants of an infection from months and months ago in an asymptomatic person I don't think that should be considered a positive case, and certainly not a contagious one.

The more cycles, the more genetic material and higher probability of a positive test depending upon the predetermined threshold. We both know this

I'm just responding in the same manner you respond. You;ve changed my outlook with youtube videos and I have seen the light. Is this not what you wanted?

That is cool...I can't tell if you are being serious but I have not seen you acknowledge learning anything from any of my posts.
Seen the light lol.

I prefer honest discussion and agree to disagree type interaction...I also learn from others on the regular, that is what life is about IMO.
I actually didn't do any internet trolling before I came to this place...my first few years here had zero trolling.

 

[Deleted member 1]

don't think they should count as current cases either.

That's what the article suggests.

That is my point, overall case numbers are overblown IMO.

The article does not say that. That is not the take-home message that person pushes. That is what you translated and I think why people are giving you such a hard time.

 

[member 3289]

Lol @ people with zero medical training trying to argue the intricacies of medical testing

 

[Rambo John J]

That's what the article suggests.



The article does not say that. That is not the take-home message that person pushes. That is what you translated and I think why people are giving you such a hard time.

I don't care about a hard time, welcome to the interwebz.

I get that the article isn't in line with my opinions on the cases...the article only states that some of the cases may be from months ago and somewhat insignificant in the active case numbers and contact tracing(wasting resources).

Cases are driving restrictions and I am not in favor of widespread restrictions in places with little or no death...That is my opinion and it is not shared by the article...I understand how it can seem the article is leading me to that position, but I felt that way before it was published...If their were less testing cycles then there would be less positives and some places could get closer to being back to normal(I understand some people don't want this and that is a different topic of course)...That kinda sums up how I see it...I am not an expert obviously.

So in conclusion I present exhibit A

 

[ThatOneDude]

I don't care about a hard time, welcome to the interwebz.

I get that the article isn't in line with my opinions on the cases...the article only states that some of the cases may be from months ago and somewhat insignificant in the active case numbers and contact tracing(wasting resources).

Cases are driving restrictions and I am not in favor of widespread restrictions in places with little or no death...That is my opinion and is not shared by the article...I understand how it can seem the article is leading me to that position, but I felt that way...If their were less testing cycles then there would be less positives and some places could get closer to being back to normal(I understand some people don't want this and that is a different topic of course)...That kinda sums up how I see it...I am not an expert obviously.

So in conclusion I present exhibit A
View attachment 15853

Of course there would be less positives with less cycles....That's like Trump saying we have so many positives because we test so much so we shouldn't test so much......

 

[Rambo John J]

Of course there would be less positives with less cycles....That's like Trump saying we have so many positives because we test so much so we shouldn't test so much......

Both are correct of course.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Both are correct.

Do you not see the issue with statements like that?

Spoiler

 

[Rambo John J]

Do you not see the issue with statements like that?

Spoiler

They both are correct...Trump's quote is silly though...Your first sentence is science and we both agree on it.

Point is...
I don't think a person that had corona 4 months back should be considered a current case...and apparently according to some testing thresholds they are.

 

[Shinkicker]

I don't think they should be contact traced either...I don't think they should count as current cases either.
That is my point, overall case numbers are overblown IMO.

Hospitilizations and deaths are what I think we should be paying attention to the most...that is also just my opinion

They definitely should be counted in the overall cases.

Have you considered that lowering the threshold will also miss newly infected people? People are most contagious from 2 days before showing symptoms until 5 days after symptoms begin.

If one of the goals is to catch it early due to asymptomatic spreaders, why in the world would we lower the threshold?

I understand the concerns in the article but they are more complicated that the one possible that you bring out.

Also, wouldn't it be more beneficial for your stated end goal to have as many positives as possible in ratio to actual sick or dying people? Doesn't that make your case better for opening everything back up?

And most people are now focusing more on hospitalization and deaths than on overall numbers, as stated earlier in this thread.

 

[ThatOneDude]

They definitely should be counted in the overall cases.

Have you considered that lowering the threshold will also miss newly infected people? People are most contagious from 2 days before showing symptoms until 5 days after symptoms begin.

If one of the goals is to catch it early due to asymptomatic spreaders, why in the world would we lower the threshold?

I understand the concerns in the article but they are more complicated that the one possible that you bring out.

Also, wouldn't it be more beneficial for your stated end goal to have as many positives as possible in ratio to actual sick or dying people? Doesn't that make your case better for opening everything back up?

I'll answer for him.
He doesn't understand the science he is reading.