General Corona virus updates

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Splinty said:
Again I didn't say otherwise. I agree on both accounts.

The point is that at this time, The previous PCR testing style did not overcount. Every time PCR cycles are brought up, including by this Twitter account, the implication is it ia over counting of cases. It is not.

This is a constant misinformation by people out of their depths and with agenda to downplay Corona virus case densities.

Like you're pointing ou, this will be a trade off of more accurate chronology to miss asymptomatic cases (some of which have questionable infectivity by the time they arrive to the clinical setting. But that doesn't change the fact that they were infected. Current testing just catches them retrospectively)

Case counts will now go down, but previous case counts were not artificially elevated. The latter is the main point here. It is the constant misinformation being spread.

at this point in case densities are so high that contact tracing is gone reagardless.
The delay in PCR testing response makes it almost worthless in the outpatient environment given the economic cost of people sitting around for 2 days for the results. It is very valuable inpatient where I have an isolated person being treated.
These recommendations and shifts are primarily about the way that we're using the technology and choosing which one we're going to use clinically in which setting.

But what you see happen is the constant misinformation that somebody makes a statement about contact tracing efficacy and the constant banging of the drum that case counts are being over counted. The remains false. They are not being over counted. It is a harmful and deadly constant misinformation that is running my empathy well dry. Beyond the sheer stupidity of it.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused. If case counts drop by 20-80% by testing protocol policy, how does that not mean we were previously overcounting, unless you're saying that we've gone from counting properly to undercounting? I'm also trying to wrap my head around why the WHO seems to have made it their goal to undermine public trust.
 
Splinty

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,096
CornPop said:
I'm a little confused. If case counts drop by 20-80% by testing protocol policy, how does that not mean we were previously overcounting, unless you're saying that we've gone from counting properly to undercounting? I'm also trying to wrap my head around why the WHO seems to have made it their goal to undermine public trust.
Click to expand...

PCR does not invent virus particles. The recommendation has been changed because somebody gets infected and didn't get tested. Somebody around them shows symptoms test positivesymptoms that they thought were allergies. They go get tested and somebody swaps them for PCR. They will come back positive. But in this case you have to take in the clinical context. They may not be a current asymptomatic case. They are on the tail end with questionable infectivity depending on the timeline. Maybe they were infected and spreading the virus in 10 days to 14 days ago. Their family member shows symptoms so everybody thinks the family member is the original case.
The current and previous PCR recommendations accurately find cases that are active and just recently finished. The latter have questionable infectivity. Or in this hypothesis none. I find out that you're positive in that case was still accurate. You did get infected I'm just telling it to you when I've basically missed the boat clinically. Because I can't differentiate whether you are on day one or day 21 of your infection, you still end up having to take the same precautions. Again this does not mean a case was invented. The case count was still accurate. We're simply grabbing some cases two weeks afterwards and it has questionable clinical utility.

Indeed as people show up to the clinical setting late in their infection we will now not count them. So yes case counts will go down and previous case counts were more accurate. but only more accurate in the sense of how many cases have we had this year or this month. Not how many cases are happening today or this week. We will start missing some of these people showing up late but that is probably okay clinically. That's what's happening here. We are trying to scale back sensitivity so that a positive means clinically relevant at the immediate timeline.

My problem is that there's an entire push on social media including this very forum that continues to conflate this pcr change with politics and and a misinformation campaign.
 
Splinty

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,096
there are a bunch of typos in the above post and I need to walk into a meeting. I Will edit it later for spelling and accuracy.
 
Thuglife13

Thuglife13

✝👦🍕🍦🍩
Dec 15, 2018
20,640
27,357
ThatOneDude said:
So their first statement is demonstrably incorrect

www.cnn.com

Tracking Covid-19 cases in the US

Track the spread of coronavirus in the United States with maps and updates on cases and deaths.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
Negative. They had it on their tv coverage all the time and rarely have it up now and claim that they have it up during covid news. They also lied using Biden's sources that Trump didn't have a vaccine distrubution plan which their Lord and Savior Fauci corrected them while being interviewed...
 
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Splinty said:
PCR does not invent virus particles. The recommendation has been changed because somebody gets infected and didn't get tested. Somebody around them shows symptoms test positivesymptoms that they thought were allergies. They go get tested and somebody swaps them for PCR. They will come back positive. But in this case you have to take in the clinical context. They may not be a current asymptomatic case. They are on the tail end with questionable infectivity depending on the timeline. Maybe they were infected and spreading the virus in 10 days to 14 days ago. Their family member shows symptoms so everybody thinks the family member is the original case.
The current and previous PCR recommendations accurately find cases that are active and just recently finished. The latter have questionable infectivity. Or in this hypothesis none. I find out that you're positive in that case was still accurate. You did get infected I'm just telling it to you when I've basically missed the boat clinically. Because I can't differentiate whether you are on day one or day 21 of your infection, you still end up having to take the same precautions. Again this does not mean a case was invented. The case count was still accurate. We're simply grabbing some cases two weeks afterwards and it has questionable clinical utility.

Indeed as people show up to the clinical setting late in their infection we will now not count them. So yes case counts will go down and previous case counts were more accurate. but only more accurate in the sense of how many cases have we had this year or this month. Not how many cases are happening today or this week. We will start missing some of these people showing up late but that is probably okay clinically. That's what's happening here. We are trying to scale back sensitivity so that a positive means clinically relevant at the immediate timeline.

My problem is that there's an entire push on social media including this very forum that continues to conflate this pcr change with politics and and a misinformation campaign.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that, and I appreciate you taking the time. I think what you might not realize is that, at least here although I suspect it's true in other jurisdictions as well, we've been beat over the head with case count being the be all, end all for informing public policy since last May. So for the WHO to now tell the public "Oh, we've been counting cases that didn't matter from a clinical perspective so we're not going to count those anymore." is very difficult to appreciate from a rubber meets the road perspective.
 
ThatOneDude

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
35,390
34,272
CornPop said:
Thank you for that, and I appreciate you taking the time. I think what you might not realize is that, at least here although I suspect it's true in other jurisdictions as well, we've been beat over the head with case count being the be all, end all for informing public policy since last May. So for the WHO to now tell the public "Oh, we've been counting cases that didn't matter from a clinical perspective so we're not going to count those anymore." is very difficult to appreciate from a rubber meets the road perspective.
Click to expand...
But doesn't science evolve as we learn more? Isn't that a good thing?
 
ThatOneDude

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
35,390
34,272
CornPop said:
He's saying it went from being front and center, to being an also run. A similar thing happened when George Floyd's death cured covid for a week.
Click to expand...
No he and the twatter post literally said its not a thing anymore, that's not the case.
 
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
ThatOneDude said:
But doesn't science evolve as we learn more? Isn't that a good thing?
Click to expand...
Of course science evolving is a good thing. New science can replace old science, but it can't mitigate the effects of the old science and that's the problem we have here.

Also, GTFO trying to paint me as some crackpot science denier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom