Covid II: Medical Info and Implications

[bluebell]

Just now, The Nehor said:

It is not necessarily that they will be more contagious or more deadly though that is a concern. As you point out it is not a hard and fast rule but viruses tend to become less deadly in the long term.

Keeping it away from people wouldn’t have that effect. It would still select more for survivability of the virus which means its ability to spread.

My concern was and is that the more virus out there the more chances it has to mutate and the more it mutates the less effective vaccination programs will be and the more likely it is to cross species. If it gets into common animals it will almost certainly become endemic in the same way influenza is. Hopefully that won’t happen and Covid is less likely to make that jump than influenza.

Survivability isn't just about it's ability to spread though.  Ultimately the virus survives best in a host it doesn't kill, and mutating to be less deadly can be better for the virus in the long run because the host holds out longer.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Survivability isn't just about it's ability to spread though.  Ultimately the virus survives best in a host it doesn't kill, and mutating to be less deadly can be better for the virus in the long run because the host holds out longer.

Yeah, but not killing the host tends to help viruses spread.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but not killing the host tends to help viruses spread.

True, but when it's less deadly, the spread isn't that big of a deal.  Colds aren't fun, but they don't cause lockdowns and pandemics either, so there's the plus side I guess.

[Harry T. Clark]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Why are you only focusing on false positives when the far more concerning and more common limitation of these tests is false negatives? 

False positives happen rarely when community spread is high.  They are more common when community spread is very low.  Some people may be inconvenienced for 10 days with a false positive.  If anyone wants, they can have a second test to confirm.  Problem solved!  On the other hand, if someone has a false negative the burden is much greater potentially leading to the hospitalization and/or death of loved ones and other close contacts.   I am much less concerned about false positives!  

Asymptomatic transmission is a thing. 

We have to focus on positive results, and not just symptoms, due to asymptomatic transmission. 

"Seems like?"  Based on what?  That seems outlandishly unreasonable to me.

No, everyone will not (and objectively does not) tests positive for at least a little amount of the virus.  How long do you think the virus lives in the body anyway?  Even if we were all exposed at some point (I wish that was true, we would have reached herd immunity!), we would not all be testing positive for more than a month or so on average.    We are at 20% positivity rate in Utah right now for those who test.  Most people who test are either symptomatic or have had close contact with someone who was - this significantly reduces the risk of false positives. 

You seem to obsess about the 40 cycles with the PCR tests when antigen testing seems to be the more commonly used as they are easier, cheaper, and quicker results - less likely to have a false positive, however, they are more likely to have a false negative than PCR.

Honestly Harry, you are worrying in the wrong direction with your concerns of false positives. 

Antigen tests were stopped in Nevada due to inaccuracies:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/health/nevada-covid-testing-nursing-homes.html

Above 24 cycles of PCR in some studies and above 35 cycles in others were associated with finding no live virus, yet positive tests results were shown anyway.  When someone tests positive with no live virus, they are of no danger to spread sars-cov-2.  https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/25/covid-19-viral-load-and-shedding-update-15177

Our governments, medical communities, and media have been trumpeting positive test results based on faulty data.  Economies have been ruined or stunted.  Needless lockdown orders have been made based on imperfect numbers.  While this is a serious illness that recently caused the death of a friend of mine's mother and another friend's wife, maybe basing our decisions on faulty data wasn't the proper course to follow.  Maybe we should look at who this affects, the elderly and immunocompromised, make decisions to keep them safe, while letting the rest of the population live their lives?

Take a look at California v. Florida.  Both are suffering equally from covid-19, yet, Florida is allowing its citizens more freedom. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9176263/Florida-California-took-opposite-approaches-COVID-19-ended-outcome.html

I think whatever we do, this will go through the population and run its course.  Gaining herd immunity via a vaccine is a great idea, assuming the vaccine works and/or doesn't cause harm.  However, perhaps we need to realize that herd immunity through exposure will ultimately be what occurs. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Antigen tests were stopped in Nevada due to inaccuracies:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/health/nevada-covid-testing-nursing-homes.html

Above 24 cycles of PCR in some studies and above 35 cycles in others were associated with finding no live virus, yet positive tests results were shown anyway.  When someone tests positive with no live virus, they are of no danger to spread sars-cov-2.  https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/25/covid-19-viral-load-and-shedding-update-15177

Our governments, medical communities, and media have been trumpeting positive test results based on faulty data.  Economies have been ruined or stunted.  Needless lockdown orders have been made based on imperfect numbers.  While this is a serious illness that recently caused the death of a friend of mine's mother and another friend's wife, maybe basing our decisions on faulty data wasn't the proper course to follow.  Maybe we should look at who this affects, the elderly and immunocompromised, make decisions to keep them safe, while letting the rest of the population live their lives?

Take a look at California v. Florida.  Both are suffering equally from covid-19, yet, Florida is allowing its citizens more freedom. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9176263/Florida-California-took-opposite-approaches-COVID-19-ended-outcome.html

I think whatever we do, this will go through the population and run its course.  Gaining herd immunity via a vaccine is a great idea, assuming the vaccine works and/or doesn't cause harm.  However, perhaps we need to realize that herd immunity through exposure will ultimately be what occurs. 

I hope you realize that there is no such thing as a perfect test.  All tests for other infectious diseases are faulty too.  We have to base our actions on the most reliable data that we have or we are flying blind.   The fact is that with high community spread, the chances of false positives are low.  

So it sounds like your claim is that it is all overblown bologna and that positive cases are actually lower than what is being reported.

Once again, can you please explain how you account for false negatives and the fact that a huge percentage of people never test despite symptoms and known contacts with positive cases? 

Lets assume what you say is true, then you also have to conclude that the death rate is actually WAY higher than is being estimated and that this infection is WAY more serious than we previously thought.   If that is true, then natural herd immunity will kill more people the I care to imagine - millions upon millions in the US alone.  

Quote

I think whatever we do, this will go through the population and run its course.  Gaining herd immunity via a vaccine is a great idea, assuming the vaccine works and/or doesn't cause harm.  However, perhaps we need to realize that herd immunity through exposure will ultimately be what occurs. 

Even if natural herd immunity was possible (which it likely isn't due to short lived natural immunity), if we just went back to life as normal beginning today, our hospitals would be overrun and the final death toll would be in the multi-millions - not just from Covid deaths but from other people needing ICU treatment but are not able to be given immediate or full attention that is needed to preserve life.   That is your great idea?   Outbreaks would infect business and cripple the workforce.  The skyrocketing daily death numbers and overrun hospitals would send panic in the public and cripple consumer confidence.  It would have a chilling effect on the economy, not just lives.  

But, you are right, some positive cases are false, therefore we can't trust any data and we should fly on a whim instead.

Quote

Above 24 cycles of PCR in some studies and above 35 cycles in others were associated with finding no live virus, yet positive tests results were shown anyway.  When someone tests positive with no live virus, they are of no danger to spread sars-cov-2.  https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/25/covid-19-viral-load-and-shedding-update-15177

Therefore it is all bunk?  You do realize that you are missing critical information to make an assessment here, right?  At what rate did this happen?  Also, you neglect the role of contact tracers who buffer this problem significantly by investigating symptom onset dates, etc. and basing isolation period on that.  Many people that test positive have already completed the necessary isolation period and don't need to isolate, despite the positive test.   You don't seem to care about the details though.  All you are trying to do is show that the tests are imperfect therefore we should go back to life as normal.   Not a good idea. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by pogi

[Harry T. Clark]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hope you realize that there is no such thing as a perfect test.  All tests for other infectious diseases are faulty too.  We have to base our actions on the most reliable data that we have or we are flying blind.   The fact is that with high community spread, the chances of false positives are low.  

So it sounds like your claim is that it is all overblown bologna and that positive cases are actually lower than what is being reported.

Once again, can you please explain how you account for false negatives and the fact that a huge percentage of people never test despite symptoms and known contacts with positive cases? 

Lets assume what you say is true, then you also have to conclude that the death rate is actually WAY higher than is being estimated and that this infection is WAY more serious than we previously thought.   If that is true, then natural herd immunity will kill more people the I care to imagine - millions upon millions in the US alone.  

Even if natural herd immunity was possible (which it likely isn't due to short lived natural immunity), if we just went back to life as normal beginning today, our hospitals would be overrun and the final death toll would be in the multi-millions - not just from Covid deaths but from other people needing ICU treatment but are not able to be given immediate or full attention that is needed to preserve life.   That is your great idea?   

1. I think if you look at how the PCR test functions and look at what experts have said about it and what the WHO just said, the current level of cycles, 40, is too much and too sensitive.  It picks up too many that do not have live virus. 

2. I don't doubt that people may test negative while the virus is multiplying inside of them and then get sick afterward.  Testers may also make mistakes in sampling or running the test.  Also, most don't get that sick from it and don't test.  But doesn't that show that perhaps the remedy is to take care of the most vulnerable while allowing the majority to live normal lives?  If I don't have that big of a risk of death or a practically non-existent risk, and if the majority of others do not either, should I and others have to shut down our businesses?  How about the vulnerable keep their distance and let the rest go back to normal?

3. If the death rate is higher, then that won't change the overall numbers of deaths that will happen or have happened. Correcting mistaken numbers won't somehow make the virus more powerful.  It is what it is regardless of the imperfect testing that is going on now.  I don't see how you can make the argument that lowering the false positives will somehow strengthen the virus.  Are you deliberately doing this?

4.  How do you know that immunity is short lived?  How do you know hospitals would be overrun?  Look at Florida and Sweden.  They haven't made the errors California has made and the numbers are the same.  Here are the Florida hospital bed numbers. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-coronavirus-florida-hospital-bed-capacities-tracker-20200403-tasn7rj2vncsjivrg75wb6gqkm-htmlstory.html

I think you are fear-mongering here.

[bsjkki]

Convalescent plasma benefits and reduces progression of covid but must be given within the first three days of symptom onset.

The article goes on discusses the advantages and difficulties of this treatment. 
 

The cost is much less than the antibody treatments but it is harder to get people treated so early. 
 

If you are high risk, contact your doctor at symptom onset and see what they can do for you. If you wait until you are really sick, treatment options are more limited.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/health/convalescent-plasma-covid.html#click=https://t.co/AQQQM3KQRz

Edited January 23, 2021 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

Another article for early treatment protocols with therapeutics from the American Journal Medicine published Jan. 1st. 
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

 

[Harry T. Clark]

Here is an article showing that immunity from exposure or vaccination may last a long time.  That is good news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/06/1015822/covid-19-immunity-likely-lasts-for-years/

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

1. I think if you look at how the PCR test functions and look at what experts have said about it and what the WHO just said, the current level of cycles, 40, is too much and too sensitive.  It picks up too many that do not have live virus. 

2. I don't doubt that people may test negative while the virus is multiplying inside of them and then get sick afterward.  Testers may also make mistakes in sampling or running the test.  Also, most don't get that sick from it and don't test.  But doesn't that show that perhaps the remedy is to take care of the most vulnerable while allowing the majority to live normal lives?  If I don't have that big of a risk of death or a practically non-existent risk, and if the majority of others do not either, should I and others have to shut down our businesses?  How about the vulnerable keep their distance and let the rest go back to normal?

3. If the death rate is higher, then that won't change the overall numbers of deaths that will happen or have happened. Correcting mistaken numbers won't somehow make the virus more powerful.  It is what it is regardless of the imperfect testing that is going on now.  I don't see how you can make the argument that lowering the false positives will somehow strengthen the virus.  Are you deliberately doing this?

4.  How do you know that immunity is short lived?  How do you know hospitals would be overrun?  Look at Florida and Sweden.  They haven't made the errors California has made and the numbers are the same.  Here are the Florida hospital bed numbers. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-coronavirus-florida-hospital-bed-capacities-tracker-20200403-tasn7rj2vncsjivrg75wb6gqkm-htmlstory.html

I think you are fear-mongering here.

1. Yes, let's look at what experts say about the PCR.  It is the "gold standard" for Covid testing.  Never in a million years would the CDC or WHO suggest we should stop using PCR tests or stop testing people in general and return to life as normal.  Get real!  You love to cherry-pick info and take it out of context of what the medical community recommends and then take that data and suggest your own protocols which fly in the face of everything the medical associations recommend.  It is reckless!  You may convince people who aren't well versed with the CDC and WHO or medical knowledge in general, but you won't fool me.   Your ill informed recommendations are toxic and dangerously infectious in their own right and need to be exposed for what they are.  Quit pretending like you know better than the CDC.  You don't. 

2. Ummm...no.  This has been discussed ad infinitum.  You can go back and read to find out why this is an uniformed and reckless suggestion.

3. A higher death rate absolutely will increase overall deaths once it has run through the population to the point of herd immunity.  It is basic math.  If 80% of the population needs to be infected before herd immunity is reached then will a higher death rate or a lower death rate cause more death by the time 80% of the public has been infected?  Come on Harry, this is basic stuff.  If you are suggesting that fewer people have been infected than is presumed, then that means more people are going to die than expected if we let natural herd immunity take its course.  If I am right and more people have been infected than represented by the numbers, than fewer people will die by the time we reach 80%.

4.  Natural immunity is expected to be months, not years long.  That is what most evidence suggests that I have read.  That is also corresponds with my personal experience in dealing with re-infections.  How do I know that hospitals will be overrun?  Because they already are.  Seriously?  Are you going to use that link to try and convince me that Florida is not in a crisis with ICU capacity.  You do realize that the red means 100% or near 100% capacity, right?  That is not accounting for staffing capacity and burnout.  That is not sustainable.  You don't watch the news do you?  You haven't really been keeping a pulse on ICU nurse experiences across the nation have you?  You haven't been hearing their pleading and desperate cries, have you?  This is not fake!!! 

Quote

I think you are fear-mongering here.

Suggesting that we follow the recommendations of the CDC is "fear mongering"?

You don't know better than the CDC Harry. Accept it.

And I think this passage describes your tactics well:

21 And others will he ^apacify, and lull them away into carnal ^bsecurity, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the ^cdevil ^dcheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

Edited January 24, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Here is an article showing that immunity from exposure or vaccination may last a long time.  That is good news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/06/1015822/covid-19-immunity-likely-lasts-for-years/

Are you willing to bet the lives of millions of people on that study Harry?  Especially considering that I can show you probably dozens which paint a more grim picture.  I hope it is right, but no way in hell should we bet on it and return to life as normal.  Again, this is reckless stuff you are spreading around and suggesting.  Not a single medical association agrees with you.  Think about that Harry...why not?   From the study:

Quote

The new study isn’t perfect. It would have been better to collect multiple blood samples from every participant...And we can’t make any firm conclusions about covid-19 immunity until years have passed—it’s simply too early.

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

However, perhaps we need to realize that herd immunity through exposure will ultimately be what occurs. 

I think not.

Ir you are right that actual positive cases are lower than reported, then the death rate would be astronomical.   Think about how many lives would be lost before reaching 80% exposure.  So far, the reported positive cases in the US are at 24.9 million.  Current reported deaths are at 414 thousand. Current population of the US is around 330 million.   The number of people that would need to be infected before natural herd immunity is estimated to be around 80%, or 264 million people.  We are not even a 10th of the way there yet, if you are right!  In other words you could multiply the current reported deaths by at least 10 before we reach herd immunity.  That would be over 4 million deaths Harry.  If you are right however, and the actual number of positive cases are lower, that number would be even higher!!!   If I am right, that number will be lower.  Either way, we have too many deaths as it is.  Seeking natural herd immunity vs preventive measures during vaccination roll out would be a death sentence for too many.  

No we can't keep the vulnerable in a bubble.  We already are doing our best to protect them, but most vulnerable people are independent and are going to do what they are going to do.  That is why they are dying.  We can't tie their hands!

Edited January 24, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

Just an FYI for those with kids...

https://apple.news/A0qg19kdRRPW3F7LWQzKt-Q

Quote

With the current widespread use of hand sanitizer in public places, it is not unexpected that young children would be drawn to these dispensers, many of which appear to be inadvertently designed to facilitate contact between the hand sanitizer and young eyes," said Dr. Kathryn Colby from the Grossman School of Medicine's department of ophthalmology at New York University in a commentary that accompanied the research. The study was published in the journal JAMA Opthamology on Thursday.

Hand sanitizer accounted for just 1.3% of all chemical eye exposure incidents in children in 2019, according to the French database. That number was 9.9% in 2020, and it said that most cases were mild. 

The biggest risk to kids, the research also suggested, could come from dispensers installed in public places. In 2020, 63 cases of exposure occurred in a public place, while none was reported in 2019

Apparently if dispenser is closer to the kids’ eye level, more likely to shoot into or splash on their eyes.  

[Harry T. Clark]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

1. Yes, let's look at what experts say about the PCR.  It is the "gold standard" for Covid testing.  Never in a million years would the CDC or WHO suggest we should stop using PCR tests or stop testing people in general and return to life as normal.  Get real!  You love to cherry-pick info and take it out of context of what the medical community recommends and then take that data and suggest your own protocols which fly in the face of everything the medical associations recommend.  It is reckless!  You may convince people who aren't well versed with the CDC and WHO or medical knowledge in general, but you won't fool me.   Your ill informed recommendations are toxic and dangerously infectious in their own right and need to be exposed for what they are.  Quit pretending like you know better than the CDC.  You don't. 

2. Ummm...no.  This has been discussed ad infinitum.  You can go back and read to find out why this is an uniformed and reckless suggestion.

3. A higher death rate absolutely will increase overall deaths once it has run through the population to the point of herd immunity.  It is basic math.  If 80% of the population needs to be infected before herd immunity is reached then will a higher death rate or a lower death rate cause more death by the time 80% of the public has been infected?  Come on Harry, this is basic stuff.  If you are suggesting that fewer people have been infected than is presumed, then that means more people are going to die than expected if we let natural herd immunity take its course.  If I am right and more people have been infected than represented by the numbers, than fewer people will die by the time we reach 80%.

4.  Natural immunity is expected to be months, not years long.  That is what all the evidence suggests.  That is also corresponds with my personal experience in dealing with re-infections.  How do I know that hospitals will be overrun?  Because they already are.  Seriously?  Are you going to use that link to try and convince me that Florida is not in a crisis with ICU capacity.  You do realize that the red means 100% or near 100% capacity, right?  That is not accounting for staffing capacity and burnout.  That is not sustainable.  You don't watch the news do you?  You haven't really been keeping a pulse on ICU nurse experiences across the nation have you?  You haven't been hearing their pleading and desperate cries, have you?  This is not fake!!! 

Suggesting that we follow the recommendations of the CDC is "fear mongering"?

You don't know better than the CDC Harry. Accept it.

And I think this passage describes your tactics well:

21 And others will he ^apacify, and lull them away into carnal ^bsecurity, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the ^cdevil ^dcheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

1. I'm suggesting that the PCR test be done with less cycles.  That's it.  Those reading this should not believe how you are trying to portray my posts.  I'm not suggesting that we do away with the test all together as you falsely suggest.  At 40 cycles, the test is too sensitive.  It is giving us a false picture of what is happening.  See what Dr. Fauci says about it, probably someone you think knows what he is doing? 

2.  Florida didn't lock down like California and has the same numbers as far as Covid-19 go.  Perhaps that means that lockdowns and other draconian measures are too much?  Even so, no one is stopping you from wearing your mask when you are driving alone or maybe when you sleep?

3. Lowering the amount of false positives will not change the amount of deaths that occur.  You need to review your logic here.  It will merely correct the numbers and give us a truer picture.  Don't you want to lower the false positives?  The WHO says that 40 cycles is too much and so does Dr. Fauci.  There are other scientists that say the same thing.  However, you are bent on deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying in order to promote your talking points.

4. I guess the article from MIT that suggests that immunity from T-cells and B-cells lasts a long time is evil and leading people to hell?  At least you didn't accuse me of murder for disagreeing with you.  I guess there is that.  How about we look for the truth?  The CDC is not the absolute authority here.  Even the prophet is fallible, but not the CDC?  Are you for real? 

[Harry T. Clark]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you willing to bet the lives of millions of people on that study Harry?  Especially considering that I can show you probably dozens which paint a more grim picture.  I hope it is right, but no way in hell should we bet on it and return to life as normal.  Again, this is reckless stuff you are spreading around and suggesting.  Not a single medical association agrees with you.  Think about that Harry...why not?   From the study:

 

Never said I was going to bet millions of lives on this study I found in an MIT publication.  However, how about we consider what all scientists are doing?  Maybe you are overreacting to this?  Also, at a certain point we should be able to go back to normal.  You don't think that will ever happen or is reckless to consider?  Please let us know when we can consider alternatives.  Suggesting a different view than yours shouldn't be illegal or evil as you want everyone here to think.

[gurn]

I found this article interesting and informative in discussing the benefits and problems with using the PCR test.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html  

Edited January 24, 2021 by gurn

[Calm]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

I found this article interesting and informative in discussing the benefits and problems with using the PCR test.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html  

It is behind a wall, so how about quoting the most relevant parts for those of us not wanting to add yet another site that has our info to get spam from (venting as suddenly getting spam on my cell after 5 years of keeping it mostly safe...maybe 4 spams a year).

[bsjkki]

Coming soon to this country. It’s just a matter of time. Scientifically, this does make sense. N95 masks required in Germany. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/2021-01-20-covid-live-updates-vaccine-news-n1254842/ncrd1254848#blogHeader

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is behind a wall, so how about quoting the most relevant parts for those of us not wanting to add yet another site that has our info to get spam from (venting as suddenly getting spam on my cell after 5 years of keeping it mostly safe...maybe 4 spams a year).

I posted this when it was published during the summer. PCR tests at 40 cycles are ridiculous.

Edited January 24, 2021 by bsjkki

[gurn]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is behind a wall, so how about quoting the most relevant parts for those of us not wanting to add yet another site that has our info to get spam from (venting as suddenly getting spam on my cell after 5 years of keeping it mostly safe...maybe 4 spams a year).

I'm not a subscriber, but I must not have used my one free article or something. I'll copy some text below, but it's kind of a disservice to complicated situation. 

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

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.

 

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

 

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”

 

 

But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.

 

Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

 

 

“It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”

 

 

[bsjkki]

Vaccine stats from Israel. 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9179677/Israeli-healthcare-group-says-coronavirus-infections-plunged-vaccinated-60s.html

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Never said I was going to bet millions of lives on this study I found in an MIT publication.  However, how about we consider what all scientists are doing?  Maybe you are overreacting to this?  Also, at a certain point we should be able to go back to normal.  You don't think that will ever happen or is reckless to consider?  Please let us know when we can consider alternatives.  Suggesting a different view than yours shouldn't be illegal or evil as you want everyone here to think.

All scientists? By which you mean listen to the relative few who tell you what you want to hear and aren't endorsing your solution to the problem in any case?

At a certain point we should be able to go back to nomal? You are suggesting that time is when disease numbers are at an all-time high, hospitals are being pushed to the limit, and deaths will start skyrocketing as people we could have saved aren't because we don't have the resources? That is your plan?

But who cares about those consequences? Harry T. Clark doesn't like wearing masks and wants to go to the movie or to a sporting event or whatever.

Well, Newsflash: NOBODY LIKES WEARING MASKS! EVERYONE WANTS TO DO FUN STUFF AGAIN! We endure this because we care about ourselves and others and are trying to keep people alive! We want this to end too but we are not prepared to sacrifice our fellowmen on the altar of the economy or our own sense of normalcy as if they were Ba'al himself.

Edited January 24, 2021 by The Nehor

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

1. I'm suggesting that the PCR test be done with less cycles.  That's it.  Those reading this should not believe how you are trying to portray my posts.  I'm not suggesting that we do away with the test all together as you falsely suggest.  At 40 cycles, the test is too sensitive.  It is giving us a false picture of what is happening.  See what Dr. Fauci says about it, probably someone you think knows what he is doing? 

2.  Florida didn't lock down like California and has the same numbers as far as Covid-19 go.  Perhaps that means that lockdowns and other draconian measures are too much?  Even so, no one is stopping you from wearing your mask when you are driving alone or maybe when you sleep?

3. Lowering the amount of false positives will not change the amount of deaths that occur.  You need to review your logic here.  It will merely correct the numbers and give us a truer picture.  Don't you want to lower the false positives?  The WHO says that 40 cycles is too much and so does Dr. Fauci.  There are other scientists that say the same thing.  However, you are bent on deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying in order to promote your talking points.

4. I guess the article from MIT that suggests that immunity from T-cells and B-cells lasts a long time is evil and leading people to hell?  At least you didn't accuse me of murder for disagreeing with you.  I guess there is that.  How about we look for the truth?  The CDC is not the absolute authority here.  Even the prophet is fallible, but not the CDC?  Are you for real? 

That is not all you are suggesting Harry.  You are suggesting that we should go back to life as normal.  I have no problem with lowering the threshold.  I have no idea what it would take to do that, or how much it would cost, but it is low on the list of my concerns in terms of protecting the American people.  As I have pointed out, it hardly affects anything as contact tracing acts as a buffer and after considering false negatives and people who don't test.  The numbers are still low despite false positives.  

The MIT study made it clear that we can't rely on its conclusions.  Yet, you choose to do so, betting on millions of lives that herd immunity is possible based on one inconclusive MIT study.

16 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Never said I was going to bet millions of lives on this study I found in an MIT publication.  However, how about we consider what all scientists are doing?  Maybe you are overreacting to this?  Also, at a certain point we should be able to go back to normal.  You don't think that will ever happen or is reckless to consider?  Please let us know when we can consider alternatives.  Suggesting a different view than yours shouldn't be illegal or evil as you want everyone here to think.

What you have proposed is that we go back to life as normal because the threshold is too high.  That is what I am suggesting as reckless.  That is what I am suggesting is betting on millions of lives.  

Edited January 24, 2021 by pogi

[Harry T. Clark]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

All scientists? By which you mean listen to the relative few who tell you what you want to hear and aren't endorsing your solution to the problem in any case?

At a certain point we should be able to go back to nomal? You are suggesting that time is when disease numbers are at an all-time high, hospitals are being pushed to the limit, and deaths will start skyrocketing as people we could have saved aren't because we don't have the resources? That is your plan?

But who cares about those consequences? Harry T. Clark doesn't like wearing masks and wants to go to the movie or to a sporting event or whatever.

Well, Newsflash: NOBODY LIKES WEARING MASKS! EVERYONE WANTS TO DO FUN STUFF AGAIN! We endure this because we care about ourselves and others and are trying to keep people alive! We want this to end too but we are not prepared to sacrifice our fellowmen on the altar of the economy or our own sense of normalcy as if they were Ba'al himself.

How do you explain the recent rise in numbers despite all of the sacrifices all are doing?  https://covidtracking.com/data/national/hospitalization

How do you explain the similarities between Florida and California even though Florida has less restrictions and California is locked down?  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9176263/amp/Florida-California-took-opposite-approaches-COVID-19-ended-outcome.html

Perhaps we should rethink our response?  Maybe it doesn't matter what we do and the virus will spread regardless?  Is it a crime to consider these questions? 

 

[Harry T. Clark]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

The MIT study made it clear that we can't rely on its conclusions.  Yet, you choose to do so, betting on millions of lives that herd immunity is possible based on one inconclusive MIT study.

What you have proposed is that we go back to life as normal because the threshold is too high.  That is what I am suggesting as reckless.  That is what I am suggesting is betting on millions of lives.  

Nurse Pogi, my point is that despite all that we are doing, the virus is continuing to spread.  Despite lock downs and mask mandates, the numbers are what they are.  I don't like having friends lose loved ones any more than anyone else.  But, it seems that what we have done hasn't worked.  California locks down and Florida doesn't, yet the numbers are depressingly the same.  Stress affects the immune system.  https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/2021-jan-depression-covid-vaccines.html  Maybe our lock down fear approach is the wrong one?  But as Florida/California show, perhaps it doesn't matter so why not go with Florida's approach while taking care of those who this affects the most, the elderly and immunocompromised?

Also, you don't have any proof that millions will die if we opt to follow Florida or Sweden.  You are just promoting fear.