Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the WHO is now recommending on 20 cycles of amplification be used on a PRC test, not the current 40. Anyone who understands how these test work will know what a huge difference that will make. So, will we suddenly see a massive drop off in infection rates once the UK implements the 20 cycle protocol? " It'll be interesting. Professor Carl Heneghan was recommending reducing the number of cycles used in community testing after the first wave last summer. His reasoning was that it would help with Track and trace concentrate on those individuals who are likely to be contagious as the current number also picks up those that are not. He recommended keeping the number of cycles high in hospital settings. The government obviously didn't agree and I think it is fairly obvious Track and trace got swamped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the WHO is now recommending on 20 cycles of amplification be used on a PRC test, not the current 40. Anyone who understands how these test work will know what a huge difference that will make. So, will we suddenly see a massive drop off in infection rates once the UK implements the 20 cycle protocol? It'll be interesting. Professor Carl Heneghan was recommending reducing the number of cycles used in community testing after the first wave last summer. His reasoning was that it would help with Track and trace concentrate on those individuals who are likely to be contagious as the current number also picks up those that are not. He recommended keeping the number of cycles high in hospital settings. The government obviously didn't agree and I think it is fairly obvious Track and trace got swamped." Now that would seem to make a lot of sense of the test could be tweaked to say if people are infectious or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PCR testing was never meant to be used as it has been. 50% accurate at best. WHO said masks do not work in march 2010. Look around you now. WHO said herd immunity will work. Now removed from its site. Neil Ferguson has been wrong on everything he has ever been involved with. CJD and Foot and mouth are but 2. Lockdowns do not work. If they did we would not be in another lockdown. Look at the date from Ivor Cummins and many other non government paid experts who have not/are NOT linked to big corrupt Pharma companies. Unlike Witless and Halfcock. Proven Vaccines do work and covid is real..before the hysterical BBC sheeple start screaming antivaxer and covdenier. " There was never any evidence that with this novel virus herd immunity could be achieved let alone that it would work. If such evidence is being developed as we learn more about it, then great. Meanwhile stopping the spread and reducing its effects when infected with vaccination are the only options right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to?" Flu is spread the same way as covid but obviously no where near as infectious. Measures such social distancing increased hygiene and mask wearing will have a massive effect on the typical yearly flu death toll of around 7 or 8000. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to?" I know. It's almost as if all this mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing and generally avoiding coughing in peoples faces has actually managed to cut down the rate of the less infectious diseases that most people have at least a little resistance to - like influenza! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the WHO is now recommending on 20 cycles of amplification be used on a PRC test, not the current 40. Anyone who understands how these test work will know what a huge difference that will make. So, will we suddenly see a massive drop off in infection rates once the UK implements the 20 cycle protocol? " Interesting they're taking note of what many virologists and such were saying from the beginning they started to use the PCR test. It is to support something already known and not prove in its sole use that someone has a particular virus etc. It's been too easy to manipulate and in many cases give a false reading. Will be interesting to see the dialogue from all corners that now happens as a result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know. It's almost as if all this mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing and generally avoiding coughing in peoples faces has actually managed to cut down the rate of the less infectious diseases that most people have at least a little resistance to - like influenza!" Do you have any data to back that claim up? How many people who have tested positive for covid were tested for the flu? How many flu tests have been done, if any. You need that sort of data to back up that claim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to?" That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E" Too logical an explanation.  Certainly won't fit in to the retoric that stay at home, minimise the risk and wear a mask don't work brigade.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E" It will be interesting to see the "impact" on other diseases as a result of some significant and prolonged behavioural changes, and more difficult access to gp and outpatient and diagnostic procedures, elective surgeries etc. Such as lower flu numbers so far... Are we driving less? Are there less collisions as a consequence? Etc... The usual somewhat lazy and unevidenced headline is "disaster" but I wonder how many visits to a gp were necessary or casualty were necessary which have now stopped or made more difficult (I think?) and at what consequence.? Are GPS working smarter in diagnosing and treating accurately over zoom? I'm sure there are some silver linings in amongst all of the clouds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E" It's not obvious at all. You need to provide data to prove you hypothesis. It could just as easily be that over sensitive PRC testing is causing a large number of flu deaths to go down as Covid. We need data to prove it either way. At the moment its all very sketchy.. Covid deaths up Flu deaths down. People claiming social distancing and masks ect isn't enough to combat Covid, but it is working for flu. Surely if this was true flu deaths would have rose and lowered along the same lines as covid following lockdowns? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E It's not obvious at all. You need to provide data to prove you hypothesis. It could just as easily be that over sensitive PRC testing is causing a large number of flu deaths to go down as Covid. We need data to prove it either way. At the moment its all very sketchy.. Covid deaths up Flu deaths down. People claiming social distancing and masks ect isn't enough to combat Covid, but it is working for flu. Surely if this was true flu deaths would have rose and lowered along the same lines as covid following lockdowns?" If the site I just pulled up (Virginia Department of Health) is correct, it's because (in part) the R0 of influenza (1-2) is lower than that of Covid-19 (2-3). In addition, we don't tend to monitor flu as closely, so cases will go undetected. Otherwise... you want evidence that infection control for a respiratory virus will be effective in stopping transmission of a respiratory virus? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E Too logical an explanation. Certainly won't fit in to the retoric that stay at home, minimise the risk and wear a mask don't work brigade. "I could understand knee jerk reactions initially, as very little information was available and extra precaution was deemed prudent. Not now. We have a lot more information that doesn't fit the current narrative which isn't even debated. A region in Spain saw an 80% drop in covid deaths after distribution of Vitamin D. Not surprised as it's probably the most important supplement you can take and is the that keeps your immune system healthy - most ppl in the UK are deficient in vit D. Studies have shown that zinc inhibits coronaviral rna replication in cells. Why isn't this being distributed far and wide? If you shelter in place for an extended period of time you don't come into regular contact with pathogens and your immune system doesn't "train" which weakens it. If you're anxious and fearful because of the news and are depressed that weakens your immune system. It's no surprise then that after being given a bit more freedom to move about when restrictions are eased that you see disease spike due to these factors. In my view there is no need to continue the current course which hasn't worked and will cause financial and societal devastation. And btw, the Pfizer vaccine is not a vaccine. It is gene therapy and a software recoding of your cells. Moderna refers to its MRna product as "software of life". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E Too logical an explanation. Certainly won't fit in to the retoric that stay at home, minimise the risk and wear a mask don't work brigade.
I could understand knee jerk reactions initially, as very little information was available and extra precaution was deemed prudent. Not now. We have a lot more information that doesn't fit the current narrative which isn't even debated.
A region in Spain saw an 80% drop in covid deaths after distribution of Vitamin D. Not surprised as it's probably the most important supplement you can take and is the that keeps your immune system healthy - most ppl in the UK are deficient in vit D.
Studies have shown that zinc inhibits coronaviral rna replication in cells. Why isn't this being distributed far and wide?
If you shelter in place for an extended period of time you don't come into regular contact with pathogens and your immune system doesn't "train" which weakens it. If you're anxious and fearful because of the news and are depressed that weakens your immune system.
It's no surprise then that after being given a bit more freedom to move about when restrictions are eased that you see disease spike due to these factors. In my view there is no need to continue the current course which hasn't worked and will cause financial and societal devastation.
And btw, the Pfizer vaccine is not a vaccine. It is gene therapy and a software recoding of your cells. Moderna refers to its MRna product as "software of life"."Some interesting comments, like you I am frustrated that, where there is strong evidence.. (such as vit D supplements) that every household was not mailed out 200 tablets of life saving therapy. Having said that, there is also great evidence that the great British public would bin / ignore / resell said tablets. Sometimes we reap what we sow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E It will be interesting to see the "impact" on other diseases as a result of some significant and prolonged behavioural changes, and more difficult access to gp and outpatient and diagnostic procedures, elective surgeries etc. Such as lower flu numbers so far... Are we driving less? Are there less collisions as a consequence? Etc... The usual somewhat lazy and unevidenced headline is "disaster" but I wonder how many visits to a gp were necessary or casualty were necessary which have now stopped or made more difficult (I think?) and at what consequence.? Are GPS working smarter in diagnosing and treating accurately over zoom? I'm sure there are some silver linings in amongst all of the clouds. " There are, many have seen these and some have acted upon them and enjoyed the benefits. I'm looking forward in hope that our society changes as do the onslaught of the drive for individualism above everything. Personal rights needs to be checked and a balance brought back in towards collectiveness, looking at what we've lost in society as a result of personal rights over collective rights. A society only truly works when the individuals understand that foremost they are part of it and create it and not the other way round. Sadly it goes against our grain and it is what fuels a lot of what we do in the West. We need a cultural and economic change but that won't happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are, many have seen these and some have acted upon them and enjoyed the benefits. I'm looking forward in hope that our society changes as do the onslaught of the drive for individualism above everything. Personal rights needs to be checked and a balance brought back in towards collectiveness, looking at what we've lost in society as a result of personal rights over collective rights. A society only truly works when the individuals understand that foremost they are part of it and create it and not the other way round. Sadly it goes against our grain and it is what fuels a lot of what we do in the West. We need a cultural and economic change but that won't happen." Hard agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E Too logical an explanation. Certainly won't fit in to the retoric that stay at home, minimise the risk and wear a mask don't work brigade.
I could understand knee jerk reactions initially, as very little information was available and extra precaution was deemed prudent. Not now. We have a lot more information that doesn't fit the current narrative which isn't even debated.
A region in Spain saw an 80% drop in covid deaths after distribution of Vitamin D. Not surprised as it's probably the most important supplement you can take and is the that keeps your immune system healthy - most ppl in the UK are deficient in vit D.
Studies have shown that zinc inhibits coronaviral rna replication in cells. Why isn't this being distributed far and wide?
If you shelter in place for an extended period of time you don't come into regular contact with pathogens and your immune system doesn't "train" which weakens it. If you're anxious and fearful because of the news and are depressed that weakens your immune system.
It's no surprise then that after being given a bit more freedom to move about when restrictions are eased that you see disease spike due to these factors. In my view there is no need to continue the current course which hasn't worked and will cause financial and societal devastation.
And btw, the Pfizer vaccine is not a vaccine. It is gene therapy and a software recoding of your cells. Moderna refers to its MRna product as "software of life".
Some interesting comments, like you I am frustrated that, where there is strong evidence.. (such as vit D supplements) that every household was not mailed out 200 tablets of life saving therapy. Having said that, there is also great evidence that the great British public would bin / ignore / resell said tablets. Sometimes we reap what we sow. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Otherwise... you want evidence that infection control for a respiratory virus will be effective in stopping transmission of a respiratory virus?" Yes, especially when it would seem so utterly effective agaisnt flu and so ineffective against Covid. That alone suggests something is wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Otherwise... you want evidence that infection control for a respiratory virus will be effective in stopping transmission of a respiratory virus? Yes, especially when it would seem so utterly effective agaisnt flu and so ineffective against Covid. That alone suggests something is wrong." Err... diseases are caused by pathogenic agents (bacteria, virus, fungus) which spreads. Influenza and Covid are respiratory illnesses. So we need to work out how to stop the spread of pathogens within respiration. I'm not citing anything because this seems... rudimentary? Also the R number matters a lot for how much you need to do to prevent infection. I gather that if this were like measles we'd be screwed, because its R0 is something like 15-20. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E Too logical an explanation. Certainly won't fit in to the retoric that stay at home, minimise the risk and wear a mask don't work brigade. "I'm sorry, I'll try not to do it again.
It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr  
E | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr
E"That's what I'm reading. Infection control doesn't prevent infection because ~conspiracy~ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Otherwise... you want evidence that infection control for a respiratory virus will be effective in stopping transmission of a respiratory virus? Yes, especially when it would seem so utterly effective agaisnt flu and so ineffective against Covid. That alone suggests something is wrong." Conversely, it could be that infection control measures are very effective against a moderately infectious disease like influenza, which everybody has some background level of immunity to, and for which there was a record high take up of the vaccine for last year. But masking etc slightly less effective against the very highly infectious disease, which nobody has any level of immunity to, and for which the vaccine only started being administered three weeks ago. Or perhaps it's that the entire development of medical science over the last 150 years was bollocks and that some geezer on facebook selling herbal remedies knows better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Or perhaps it's that the entire development of medical science over the last 150 years was bollocks and that some geezer on facebook selling herbal remedies knows better?" It's hygiene and vitamins and big pharma is an evil conspiracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Otherwise... you want evidence that infection control for a respiratory virus will be effective in stopping transmission of a respiratory virus? Yes, especially when it would seem so utterly effective agaisnt flu and so ineffective against Covid. That alone suggests something is wrong. Err... diseases are caused by pathogenic agents (bacteria, virus, fungus) which spreads. Influenza and Covid are respiratory illnesses. So we need to work out how to stop the spread of pathogens within respiration. I'm not citing anything because this seems... rudimentary? Also the R number matters a lot for how much you need to do to prevent infection. I gather that if this were like measles we'd be screwed, because its R0 is something like 15-20." But of course we're not screwed by it being measles because there has been an extensive program of vaccination for measles, specifically because measles spreads through an unvaccinated population like a plague. Of course, measles _is_ becoming a problem again due to the number of antivaxxer twonks who believe cobblers on facebook. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Otherwise... you want evidence that infection control for a respiratory virus will be effective in stopping transmission of a respiratory virus? Yes, especially when it would seem so utterly effective agaisnt flu and so ineffective against Covid. That alone suggests something is wrong. Err... diseases are caused by pathogenic agents (bacteria, virus, fungus) which spreads. Influenza and Covid are respiratory illnesses. So we need to work out how to stop the spread of pathogens within respiration. I'm not citing anything because this seems... rudimentary? Also the R number matters a lot for how much you need to do to prevent infection. I gather that if this were like measles we'd be screwed, because its R0 is something like 15-20. But of course we're not screwed by it being measles because there has been an extensive program of vaccination for measles, specifically because measles spreads through an unvaccinated population like a plague. Of course, measles _is_ becoming a problem again due to the number of antivaxxer twonks who believe cobblers on facebook." They "do their research" and... well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr
E
That's what I'm reading. Infection control doesn't prevent infection because ~conspiracy~"You know the chips in the vaccine, they can be programmed to turn us into zombies. True story. E | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr
E
That's what I'm reading. Infection control doesn't prevent infection because ~conspiracy~
You know the chips in the vaccine, they can be programmed to turn us into zombies.
True story.
E"Big Pharma can't be trusted. Except the package inserts. They're sacrosanct gospel. The government can't be trusted, except for vaccine side effect monitoring. On and on... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr
E
That's what I'm reading. Infection control doesn't prevent infection because ~conspiracy~"Why does it have to be a conspiracy? All I'm suggesting is that if PRC testing has be far to over sensitive, then flu deaths could be registered as Covid. Meaning the low nunber of flu deaths is inaccurate and and the number of Covid deaths may not be so high. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr
E
That's what I'm reading. Infection control doesn't prevent infection because ~conspiracy~
Why does it have to be a conspiracy?
All I'm suggesting is that if PRC testing has be far to over sensitive, then flu deaths could be registered as Covid.
Meaning the low nunber of flu deaths is inaccurate and and the number of Covid deaths may not be so high.
"A test designed to pick up genetic material is so sensitive that it'll pick up a completely different virus in an entirely different family of viruses? That would be... genetically different? That doesn't even pass the sniff test. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can't question anything on this forum without being labled a conspiracy theorist. I am not. I have however seen major floors in the collection and use of data. Time and time again" What flaws have you seen and what's the evidence for it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a bit like saying infection control doesn't work to stop infections. Errrrrrrr
E
That's what I'm reading. Infection control doesn't prevent infection because ~conspiracy~
Why does it have to be a conspiracy?
All I'm suggesting is that if PRC testing has be far to over sensitive, then flu deaths could be registered as Covid.
Meaning the low nunber of flu deaths is inaccurate and and the number of Covid deaths may not be so high.
"If I'm understanding you correctly, and it's possible I'm not so apologies, you seem to be suggesting a test to detect one specific set of information can also detect something unrelated. Is that what you mean, because if you are definitely not a conspiracy theory, more a lack of understanding about how tests are designed for one function. E | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" different family of viruses? That would be... genetically different? That doesn't even pass the sniff test." Nope you totally mis understand what i have said. The test is so sensitive you could detect the tiniest fragment of covid in the nose or throat. Such a small amount that could be picked up very easily in a covid packed environment like a hospital. The patient may not be infected at all or may have been infected but recovered. They may well be sick with flu and yet now are recorded as Covid positive. If you don't think that's possible go take a look at just how sensitive a 40 cycle PRC test is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If I'm understanding you correctly, and it's possible I'm not so apologies, you seem to be suggesting a test to detect one specific set of information can also detect something unrelated. Is that what you mean, because if you are definitely not a conspiracy theory, more a lack of understanding about how tests are designed for one function. E" No you completely mis understand what was being said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" different family of viruses? That would be... genetically different? That doesn't even pass the sniff test. Nope you totally mis understand what i have said. The test is so sensitive you could detect the tiniest fragment of covid in the nose or throat. Such a small amount that could be picked up very easily in a covid packed environment like a hospital. The patient may not be infected at all or may have been infected but recovered. They may well be sick with flu and yet now are recorded as Covid positive. If you don't think that's possible go take a look at just how sensitive a 40 cycle PRC test is. " I don't know the specifics, but I rely on science and medicine in every area of my life, every day. I assume a certain level of competence. We all do. I do know how academic discourse and the development of an academic consensus works to figure out the truth. I think it's telling that this assumption of competence is turned on its head just for this one thing. I'm certain that if the PCR were so wildly incompetent, that the academic fight to reveal it would be vicious and public (I've seen it play out over way less important shit). The rewards for revealing that would be monumental for scientists. None of this passes the sniff test. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't know the specifics, but I rely on science and medicine in every area of my life, every day. I assume a certain level of competence. We all do. I do know how academic discourse and the development of an academic consensus works to figure out the truth. I think it's telling that this assumption of competence is turned on its head just for this one thing. I'm certain that if the PCR were so wildly incompetent, that the academic fight to reveal it would be vicious and public (I've seen it play out over way less important shit). The rewards for revealing that would be monumental for scientists. None of this passes the sniff test." There has been a huge academic fight over this. A fight that has been won by the side claiming that 40 cycles was way way to high. Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't know the specifics, but I rely on science and medicine in every area of my life, every day. I assume a certain level of competence. We all do. I do know how academic discourse and the development of an academic consensus works to figure out the truth. I think it's telling that this assumption of competence is turned on its head just for this one thing. I'm certain that if the PCR were so wildly incompetent, that the academic fight to reveal it would be vicious and public (I've seen it play out over way less important shit). The rewards for revealing that would be monumental for scientists. None of this passes the sniff test. There has been a huge academic fight over this. A fight that has been won by the side claiming that 40 cycles was way way to high. Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles." My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. It's amazing how many non specialists have suddenly popped up knowing about PCR, when specialists have been working on it for years. I'm not a specialist, nor do I claim to be. I've just sought them out to protect myself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The main argument the many in the know have said is that it's so sensitive it even detects dead cells relating to what it's looking for and there gives a positive result which could be false. All it then says is the person had covid at some time in the past. I'd say this is the reason why the WHO are finally pulling back on the sensitivity in the hope that it starts to eliminate these false positive readings. It wouldn't surprise me it a new or different test is being considered but that will be both a political and costly mountain to climb" I've been hearing for months that, in some labs (ones in the areas of the experts I listen to), they'd already set their own rate and the person got a yes/no on that basis. I'd never heard as high as 40. Types of test is definitely a hotly contested issue within the scientific community. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . I think it's telling that this assumption of competence is turned on its head just for this one thing. I'm certain that if the PCR were so wildly incompetent, that the academic fight to reveal it would be vicious and public (I've seen it play out over way less important shit). The rewards for revealing that would be monumental for scientists. None of this passes the sniff test." It has also been a very public battle. Plenty of academics spoke out right from the start. Any time anyone has mentioned this here they have been labled conspiracy theorists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The main argument the many in the know have said is that it's so sensitive it even detects dead cells relating to what it's looking for and there gives a positive result which could be false. All it then says is the person had covid at some time in the past. I'd say this is the reason why the WHO are finally pulling back on the sensitivity in the hope that it starts to eliminate these false positive readings. It wouldn't surprise me it a new or different test is being considered but that will be both a political and costly mountain to climb" This is why a positive test does not necessarily imply a case. A court in Portugal was specific in ruling the quarantine of a plaintiff as illegal as there was no medical professional present to confirm a diagnosis and correlate the lab results clinically; which by the way is standard medical practice. The plaintiff was non symptomatic. The court also pointed out the high rate of false positives with PCR testing. In their ruling it stated precisely these points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The main argument the many in the know have said is that it's so sensitive it even detects dead cells relating to what it's looking for and there gives a positive result which could be false. All it then says is the person had covid at some time in the past. I'd say this is the reason why the WHO are finally pulling back on the sensitivity in the hope that it starts to eliminate these false positive readings. It wouldn't surprise me it a new or different test is being considered but that will be both a political and costly mountain to climb This is why a positive test does not necessarily imply a case. A court in Portugal was specific in ruling the quarantine of a plaintiff as illegal as there was no medical professional present to confirm a diagnosis and correlate the lab results clinically; which by the way is standard medical practice. The plaintiff was non symptomatic. The court also pointed out the high rate of false positives with PCR testing. In their ruling it stated precisely these points." The Portuguese court case is interesting as the 2 appeal court judges overturned a lower court judge. They seem to have been reprimanded not due to views on covid but on their interpretation of the law. It seems they were very very selective on their use of scientific sources. At the moment we have no definitive idea who spreads covid and who doesn't spread it. In this phase that world is in at the moment which is test and isolate the sensible thing would be to err on the side of caution and flag up anyone that can possibly spread covid. The current PCR probably still has more false negatives than false positives due to sampling errors, which can only really give false negatives. Its not easy or comfortable to take a swab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. ." Incorrect. The labs do not set the threshold, the manufacturers of the PCR test do. A freedom of information request to the Scottish government revealed all the manufacturers set a maximum of "around 40 cycles" That same FOI request also revealed the tests they use can not tell the difference between live or dead virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to? That sounded like an informed intelligent point. Up to when you asked where flu had gone. Flu has "gone" (it hasnt) due to the high numbers of people wearing masks when they go out and huge numbers of people staying home. I would have thought that was obvious? E It will be interesting to see the "impact" on other diseases as a result of some significant and prolonged behavioural changes, and more difficult access to gp and outpatient and diagnostic procedures, elective surgeries etc. Such as lower flu numbers so far... Are we driving less? Are there less collisions as a consequence? Etc... The usual somewhat lazy and unevidenced headline is "disaster" but I wonder how many visits to a gp were necessary or casualty were necessary which have now stopped or made more difficult (I think?) and at what consequence.? Are GPS working smarter in diagnosing and treating accurately over zoom? I'm sure there are some silver linings in amongst all of the clouds. There are, many have seen these and some have acted upon them and enjoyed the benefits. I'm looking forward in hope that our society changes as do the onslaught of the drive for individualism above everything. Personal rights needs to be checked and a balance brought back in towards collectiveness, looking at what we've lost in society as a result of personal rights over collective rights. A society only truly works when the individuals understand that foremost they are part of it and create it and not the other way round. Sadly it goes against our grain and it is what fuels a lot of what we do in the West. We need a cultural and economic change but that won't happen." You want fewer personal rights? Which model of government do you prefer communism or fascism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask.......... "I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future "Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But... "I know I will. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But...
I know I will."You've more faith than I have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But...
I know I will."I think if we made social distancing permanent along with tier 3 restrictions, mandatory vaccines and other minor changes to the old way of life we could virtually eliminate flu deaths entirely. A better future for the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality is all of this polemics. Most here have an agenda as to why they want to side on one side or another. Many it's so they can justify their conscience in front of others for not complying to restrictions. The thing is it's people that spread it and mostly by those who don't comply to the non essential travel and leaving the house. If I feel their agenda is to justify not to comply then I'll take little heed to what they are saying. I will listen to both sides of the argument if both parties are adhering to the restrictions though." For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But...
I know I will.
I think if we made social distancing permanent along with tier 3 restrictions, mandatory vaccines and other minor changes to the old way of life we could virtually eliminate flu deaths entirely. A better future for the country. "I more mean masks in shops and on public transport and more care to keeping my germs away from strangers, but hey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But...
I know I will.
I think if we made social distancing permanent along with tier 3 restrictions, mandatory vaccines and other minor changes to the old way of life we could virtually eliminate flu deaths entirely. A better future for the country.
I more mean masks in shops and on public transport and more care to keeping my germs away from strangers, but hey."Yes, I agree. Why draw the line at masks when we can go a lot further to stop these unnecessary deaths. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But...
I know I will.
I think if we made social distancing permanent along with tier 3 restrictions, mandatory vaccines and other minor changes to the old way of life we could virtually eliminate flu deaths entirely. A better future for the country.
I more mean masks in shops and on public transport and more care to keeping my germs away from strangers, but hey.
Yes, I agree. Why draw the line at masks when we can go a lot further to stop these unnecessary deaths. "You do you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why?" Of course it applies. And in this case a large number of experts said rigjt from the start, 40 cycles was way way to high. They have finally won the argument and the WHO have reduced the maximum cycles to 20. A 20 cycle reduction is a massive deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why? Of course it applies. And in this case a large number of experts said rigjt from the start, 40 cycles was way way to high. They have finally won the argument and the WHO have reduced the maximum cycles to 20. A 20 cycle reduction is a massive deal. " Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Really? Those paper masks stop the flu? Should have done it years ago then. Think of all the people die of flu every winter. Could have saved them all with a 10p mask..........
I agree. It's shameful we haven't been more mindful of epidemic disease before. I'm glad we're more aware now and will do better in future
Yes I know there's more than a hint of sarcasm. Sadly we are seeing already that boredom and laziness are creeping back in again... I'd love to think we will learn and improve but... But...
I know I will.
I think if we made social distancing permanent along with tier 3 restrictions, mandatory vaccines and other minor changes to the old way of life we could virtually eliminate flu deaths entirely. A better future for the country. "I'd like to hope that basic hygiene will once again become compulsory... For example what the old ward sisters used to enforce. Like quarantining new residents in care homes, like testing before admitting, like washing hands between patients, gloves, masks... All of which had become very very sloppy. But as for people coughing and sneezing over others and not washing hands..or not going into places of work when they are ill or sending kids to school when they are ill. Not flying when ill... Not confident at all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality is all of this polemics. Most here have an agenda as to why they want to side on one side or another. Many it's so they can justify their conscience in front of others for not complying to restrictions. The thing is it's people that spread it and mostly by those who don't comply to the non essential travel and leaving the house. If I feel their agenda is to justify not to comply then I'll take little heed to what they are saying. I will listen to both sides of the argument if both parties are adhering to the restrictions though. For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why?" Facebook knows better? Don't be so silly it's only flu... Its only old people who are gonna die sometime anyway... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality is all of this polemics. Most here have an agenda as to why they want to side on one side or another. Many it's so they can justify their conscience in front of others for not complying to restrictions. The thing is it's people that spread it and mostly by those who don't comply to the non essential travel and leaving the house. If I feel their agenda is to justify not to comply then I'll take little heed to what they are saying. I will listen to both sides of the argument if both parties are adhering to the restrictions though. For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why? Facebook knows better? Don't be so silly it's only flu... Its only old people who are gonna die sometime anyway... " Lolsob | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Facebook knows better? Don't be so silly it's only flu... Its only old people who are gonna die sometime anyway... " You have clearly not read this thread or if you have, understood what it's about. Those sentiments have not been expressed and are irrelevant to the discussion about the accuracy of PRC tests. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it?" It potentially makes a huge difference. If our data on how infectious this disease is, or how many people are actually dying from it is wrong, how can an effective response be extrapolated from that data? It doesn't matter what side of any debate you are on, if the original data is wrong, all conclusions made from analysis of that data will be wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it? It potentially makes a huge difference. If our data on how infectious this disease is, or how many people are actually dying from it is wrong, how can an effective response be extrapolated from that data? It doesn't matter what side of any debate you are on, if the original data is wrong, all conclusions made from analysis of that data will be wrong. " How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it? It potentially makes a huge difference. If our data on how infectious this disease is, or how many people are actually dying from it is wrong, how can an effective response be extrapolated from that data? It doesn't matter what side of any debate you are on, if the original data is wrong, all conclusions made from analysis of that data will be wrong. How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error?" No, the suggestion is that the response has been based on bad data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error?" There are plenty of scientists/academics qualified who have been arguing both sides of the argument. All of us who are less qualified can only listen to their arguments and make decision based on that. From day 1 the accuracy of PRC tests has been called into question by many scientists and academics. Anyone mentioning these concerns here has been shot down and labled a conspiracy theorist. In this case the scientists and academics questioning the argument have been won out and now the WHO have changed their recommendations. This is a step towards getting accurate data. Unfortunately ita taken a year to get to this point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality is all of this polemics. Most here have an agenda as to why they want to side on one side or another. Many it's so they can justify their conscience in front of others for not complying to restrictions. The thing is it's people that spread it and mostly by those who don't comply to the non essential travel and leaving the house. If I feel their agenda is to justify not to comply then I'll take little heed to what they are saying. I will listen to both sides of the argument if both parties are adhering to the restrictions though. For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why?" We have become a society more and more reliant upon experts for numerous reasons. The phrase, 'the computer says' or 'science says' defines where many of us are, scared to take responsibility and make educated choices for ourselves. Some experts are such only on paper and lack considerable experience yet we bow down to them very quickly without asking questions. There are those who have great experience but lack the paper to prove it too. I built my own house 38 yes ago. Never plastered, never plumbed a house never wired a house, only did block work in gardens. I gained a lot of knowledge asking and listening to tradesmen and suppliers, asked a lot of questions and compared answers. I then dug my foundations poured the founds and built up to window sills. Recognised this was going to take a long time as I worked during the day so hired two brickies whom I worked with on weekends and I continued evenings after they finished. I did all the roofing myself, wired and plumbed it myself, only thing I didn't do was final skim on the plastering and had pvc windows and doors fitted by the suppliers. I got it signed off by the required people at each stage. I do all my own maintenance and servicing on my van, car and motorcycles. I had basic knowledge as an engineer but the rest was learnt and applied and bucket loads of common sense. It passed all requirements and is still standing. I wouldn't call myself an expert in any way, however I'm regularly asked to do work for many who may trust my ability. If that makes any sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality is all of this polemics. Most here have an agenda as to why they want to side on one side or another. Many it's so they can justify their conscience in front of others for not complying to restrictions. The thing is it's people that spread it and mostly by those who don't comply to the non essential travel and leaving the house. If I feel their agenda is to justify not to comply then I'll take little heed to what they are saying. I will listen to both sides of the argument if both parties are adhering to the restrictions though. For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why? We have become a society more and more reliant upon experts for numerous reasons. The phrase, 'the computer says' or 'science says' defines where many of us are, scared to take responsibility and make educated choices for ourselves. Some experts are such only on paper and lack considerable experience yet we bow down to them very quickly without asking questions. There are those who have great experience but lack the paper to prove it too. I built my own house 38 yes ago. Never plastered, never plumbed a house never wired a house, only did block work in gardens. I gained a lot of knowledge asking and listening to tradesmen and suppliers, asked a lot of questions and compared answers. I then dug my foundations poured the founds and built up to window sills. Recognised this was going to take a long time as I worked during the day so hired two brickies whom I worked with on weekends and I continued evenings after they finished. I did all the roofing myself, wired and plumbed it myself, only thing I didn't do was final skim on the plastering and had pvc windows and doors fitted by the suppliers. I got it signed off by the required people at each stage. I do all my own maintenance and servicing on my van, car and motorcycles. I had basic knowledge as an engineer but the rest was learnt and applied and bucket loads of common sense. It passed all requirements and is still standing. I wouldn't call myself an expert in any way, however I'm regularly asked to do work for many who may trust my ability. If that makes any sense." It does. I have family and friends who've done similar. I haven't. I think we necessarily rely on experts, but very few understand what constitutes expertise and reliable information. I think we overestimate our abilities in the main. I think relying on experts is how we maintain a high quality of life free of the scourges that ravaged our ancestors not that long ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error? There are plenty of scientists/academics qualified who have been arguing both sides of the argument. All of us who are less qualified can only listen to their arguments and make decision based on that. From day 1 the accuracy of PRC tests has been called into question by many scientists and academics. Anyone mentioning these concerns here has been shot down and labled a conspiracy theorist. In this case the scientists and academics questioning the argument have been won out and now the WHO have changed their recommendations. This is a step towards getting accurate data. Unfortunately ita taken a year to get to this point. " Why is there not an explosion of false positives of PCR in Australia? One state recently locked down for three days over one positive, after all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The reality is all of this polemics. Most here have an agenda as to why they want to side on one side or another. Many it's so they can justify their conscience in front of others for not complying to restrictions. The thing is it's people that spread it and mostly by those who don't comply to the non essential travel and leaving the house. If I feel their agenda is to justify not to comply then I'll take little heed to what they are saying. I will listen to both sides of the argument if both parties are adhering to the restrictions though. For me it boils down to expertise. We rely on expertise for everything. Our houses stay upright, our cars don't burst into flames, our water doesn't make us sick, etc. The same applies to medicine. Including all this stuff. Except apparently not. Why? Facebook knows better? Don't be so silly it's only flu... Its only old people who are gonna die sometime anyway... " That'll be quickly misunderstood.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error? There are plenty of scientists/academics qualified who have been arguing both sides of the argument. All of us who are less qualified can only listen to their arguments and make decision based on that. From day 1 the accuracy of PRC tests has been called into question by many scientists and academics. Anyone mentioning these concerns here has been shot down and labled a conspiracy theorist. In this case the scientists and academics questioning the argument have been won out and now the WHO have changed their recommendations. This is a step towards getting accurate data. Unfortunately ita taken a year to get to this point. Why is there not an explosion of false positives of PCR in Australia? One state recently locked down for three days over one positive, after all." Their numbers have become so reduced that there is little room for an explosion of anything. The fact they acted so hard on one case shows this. It's not a new way of acting either, so it could be argued that it has had a clear sustained effect upon the spread and therefore evolving of the virus too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error? There are plenty of scientists/academics qualified who have been arguing both sides of the argument. All of us who are less qualified can only listen to their arguments and make decision based on that. From day 1 the accuracy of PRC tests has been called into question by many scientists and academics. Anyone mentioning these concerns here has been shot down and labled a conspiracy theorist. In this case the scientists and academics questioning the argument have been won out and now the WHO have changed their recommendations. This is a step towards getting accurate data. Unfortunately ita taken a year to get to this point. Why is there not an explosion of false positives of PCR in Australia? One state recently locked down for three days over one positive, after all. Their numbers have become so reduced that there is little room for an explosion of anything. The fact they acted so hard on one case shows this. It's not a new way of acting either, so it could be argued that it has had a clear sustained effect upon the spread and therefore evolving of the virus too. " But if the PCR shows a huge number of false positives, then where are the false positives? Given that (they can with low numbers) they genomically sequence every case, it'd become apparent pretty quickly. And yet... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The main argument the many in the know have said is that it's so sensitive it even detects dead cells relating to what it's looking for and there gives a positive result which could be false. All it then says is the person had covid at some time in the past. I'd say this is the reason why the WHO are finally pulling back on the sensitivity in the hope that it starts to eliminate these false positive readings. It wouldn't surprise me it a new or different test is being considered but that will be both a political and costly mountain to climb This is why a positive test does not necessarily imply a case. A court in Portugal was specific in ruling the quarantine of a plaintiff as illegal as there was no medical professional present to confirm a diagnosis and correlate the lab results clinically; which by the way is standard medical practice. The plaintiff was non symptomatic. The court also pointed out the high rate of false positives with PCR testing. In their ruling it stated precisely these points. The Portuguese court case is interesting as the 2 appeal court judges overturned a lower court judge. They seem to have been reprimanded not due to views on covid but on their interpretation of the law. It seems they were very very selective on their use of scientific sources. At the moment we have no definitive idea who spreads covid and who doesn't spread it. In this phase that world is in at the moment which is test and isolate the sensible thing would be to err on the side of caution and flag up anyone that can possibly spread covid. The current PCR probably still has more false negatives than false positives due to sampling errors, which can only really give false negatives. Its not easy or comfortable to take a swab." What NylonSlut said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting point. I had thought that presenteeism is much reduced these days. 20 years ago people used to soldier on at work when ill for fear of being seen as lazy but these days people are more likely to take a sick day or work from home. " I have family who are forced to go into the office of 17 when feeling ill. One so ce tested positive and told not to tell anyone else he has tested positive. I think presenteeism is force by management in some cases. For fear of losing jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it? It potentially makes a huge difference. If our data on how infectious this disease is, or how many people are actually dying from it is wrong, how can an effective response be extrapolated from that data? It doesn't matter what side of any debate you are on, if the original data is wrong, all conclusions made from analysis of that data will be wrong. " Absolutely agree. Given what we know. What then is a more accurate metric.? Patients admitted to hospital? Antibody studies? Deaths? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it? It potentially makes a huge difference. If our data on how infectious this disease is, or how many people are actually dying from it is wrong, how can an effective response be extrapolated from that data? It doesn't matter what side of any debate you are on, if the original data is wrong, all conclusions made from analysis of that data will be wrong. How qualified are any of us to interpret the data? Are you suggesting that the crisis is somehow manufactured by an error? No, the suggestion is that the response has been based on bad data. " I'd probably agree with that. But it's what we have. People are being hospitalised in 1000s daily and dying in 1000s daily. That's not made up. I think if there were a better alternative any of the other 190 regimes suffering with it would have found it by now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok. So why do you (the OP) think we have anything meaningful to add on this kind of specialist research? What does this change about our lives? What does this change about the pandemic and how we measure it? It potentially makes a huge difference. If our data on how infectious this disease is, or how many people are actually dying from it is wrong, how can an effective response be extrapolated from that data? It doesn't matter what side of any debate you are on, if the original data is wrong, all conclusions made from analysis of that data will be wrong. Absolutely agree. Given what we know. What then is a more accurate metric.? Patients admitted to hospital? Antibody studies? Deaths? " I think measurements are necessarily in flux, and it's hard to know for sure. It'll be picked over in retrospect. I think some take that uncertainty and run to an extreme that isn't justified. Were there 1800 deaths yesterday? 2000? 1500? The figure is approximate by necessity. It's a lot, and it's a lot more than when 300 might have been 200 or 400. And it indicates the amount we need to worry, etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Absolutely agree. Given what we know. What then is a more accurate metric.? Patients admitted to hospital? Antibody studies? Deaths? " Well as this entire thread is about PRC test and their accuracy, I should be clear that is the metric I am talking about. Thankfully furture batches of PRC test will have a 20 cycle maximum. Once these batches of test are in use we should get more accurate data. I also believe testing for influenza should become common place within hospitals. That data could prove if masks and social distancing has had a dramatic effect of flu infection rates. If it has thats a massive win for society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Absolutely agree. Given what we know. What then is a more accurate metric.? Patients admitted to hospital? Antibody studies? Deaths? Well as this entire thread is about PRC test and their accuracy, I should be clear that is the metric I am talking about. Thankfully furture batches of PRC test will have a 20 cycle maximum. Once these batches of test are in use we should get more accurate data. I also believe testing for influenza should become common place within hospitals. That data could prove if masks and social distancing has had a dramatic effect of flu infection rates. If it has thats a massive win for society. " That's a good idea. If they have time, bandwidth, process, resources etc to do so. I think there could be an awful lot of beneficial analysis of human behaviour from this last year and probably the next 2 or 3 years as well. That would hopefully better inform future responses to pandemics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. . Incorrect. The labs do not set the threshold, the manufacturers of the PCR test do. A freedom of information request to the Scottish government revealed all the manufacturers set a maximum of "around 40 cycles" That same FOI request also revealed the tests they use can not tell the difference between live or dead virus. " There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). PCR is not a test. It is a bog standard molecular biology technique for taking small amounts of genetic material (RNA or DNA) and making more of it. The amount of genetic material you gain on a cotton swab of the oropharyngeal cavity will be too small to be visible in the assays used further down the diagnosis process. PCR involves using cycles of heating and cooling using a machine called a thermocycler. Yes, many different brands exist, but they all do the same basic thing. The really expensive ones can be controlled wirelessly etc whereas cheaper ones require someone to manually press buttons etc. To produce copies of genetic material (to amplify the sample from the swab), you need not only heating and cooling (which is what the thermocycler does), but you also need to include enzymes, "spare" template genetic material (called nucleotides) and primers (bits of DNA or RNA designed to attach to a specific sequence, in this case, a sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gene). All of these primers, nucleotides and enzymes are laboratory reagents and can be purchased from a multitude of suppliers. These same reagents also have other applications in biology and so are not only used in PCR reactions. Once the PCR cycles of heating and cooling are finished, the sample tube will now contain more copies of the target genetic material (if any existed in the original sample) but we, the lab rats, cannot actually see it. It's too tiny. There then needs to be a step whereby the amplified sample is analysed and this can be done by doing a technique called agarose gel electrophoresis. This involves injecting the sample from the PCR process into pre cut wells, within a gel matrix. The gel sits in a solution containing electrolytes. The pores (holes) in the matrix are of the size required to let fragments of genetic information move through. DNA and RNA are negatively charged so you can separate samples of genetic material through the gel by applying an electric current through the liquid medium. The post-PCR sample is first "tagged" with a fluorescent dye so it can be visualised later. One of the wells in the gel is for a reference genetic sample. For the Covid diagnosis, this will be the known sequence in the spike protein that is being looked for. Once the current has been applied (takes 30-40mins), the gel is removed from the liquid and placed in a machine that can pick up the fluorescent signal from any genetic material present. If the fluorescence pattern in one sample matches the reference sample, then a positive outcome for SARS-CoV-2 is recorded. So, PCR is only one of many processes required to ascertain whether a swab sample does contain evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's true to say that PCR will amplify any SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in this sample. It cannot tell you if someone is contagious etc. We don't know enough about the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 to know whether there is significant viral shedding after an infectious stage or to what extent asymptomatic people are contagious. Governments the world over are erring on the side of caution, therefore, and asking anyone who tests positive to isolate themselves. In the future, once we have better understanding and data on the period of shedding and infectiousness, we can perhaps take a different approach. It's worth noting that everyone banging on about flu etc. PCR is used to detect flu in samples too, the only difference being that the primer sequences required for flu identification would be different and the reference sequence used in electrophoresis would be specific to the influenza virus being detected. There are myriad influenza viruses and it is time consuming and expensive to conduct these diagnostic tests en mass. In general, it is not necessary to identify influenza specifically in patients because there is no curative treatment for influenza and only supportive general treatment can be offered in hospital, which is given irrespective of what a diagnostic test says. In a "normal" year, reference samples are taken to monitor flu in the community and hospitals, but mass testing isn't used because for most people, flu is self limiting and requires no specific treatment. It is also considerably less infectious than Covid-19 and most people have some level of background immunity to influenza viruses, having encountered variations of them every year since birth. Everyone on Earth was naïve to SARS-CoV-2 as of November (ish) 2019. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). " Really? Thats funny as there are a number of manufacturers making and selling the machines that do this process. The same manufacturers mentioned in the Scottish government FOI request. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). Really? Thats funny as there are a number of manufacturers making and selling the machines that do this process. The same manufacturers mentioned in the Scottish government FOI request. " Yes, they make a machine. Not a test. The machine from manufacturer A does exactly the same thing as manufacturer B, just with different pre sets, different ways to connect to computers, operate them wirelessly etc. A cheap thermocycler does exactly the same as a more expensive one, but the cheap one might require more buttons to be pressed and therefore more staff time. Have you ever used a thermocycler? Have you ever run a PCR protocol? I have, squillions of times, on many different machines and they all do the same thing. Of course Manufacturer A, who also sells the reagents, will want you to also buy their primers, polymerase etc. but you can still carry out a perfectly accurate procedure with the reagents from Manufacturer B (who may or may not make thermocyclers). Kinda like buying Tesco own brand paracetamol vs Nurofen. Same stuff, same job, different package and price. Do you have any understanding of PCR, operating a thermocycler, agarose gel electrophoresis etc? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. . Incorrect. The labs do not set the threshold, the manufacturers of the PCR test do. A freedom of information request to the Scottish government revealed all the manufacturers set a maximum of "around 40 cycles" That same FOI request also revealed the tests they use can not tell the difference between live or dead virus. There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). PCR is not a test. It is a bog standard molecular biology technique for taking small amounts of genetic material (RNA or DNA) and making more of it. The amount of genetic material you gain on a cotton swab of the oropharyngeal cavity will be too small to be visible in the assays used further down the diagnosis process. PCR involves using cycles of heating and cooling using a machine called a thermocycler. Yes, many different brands exist, but they all do the same basic thing. The really expensive ones can be controlled wirelessly etc whereas cheaper ones require someone to manually press buttons etc. To produce copies of genetic material (to amplify the sample from the swab), you need not only heating and cooling (which is what the thermocycler does), but you also need to include enzymes, "spare" template genetic material (called nucleotides) and primers (bits of DNA or RNA designed to attach to a specific sequence, in this case, a sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gene). All of these primers, nucleotides and enzymes are laboratory reagents and can be purchased from a multitude of suppliers. These same reagents also have other applications in biology and so are not only used in PCR reactions. Once the PCR cycles of heating and cooling are finished, the sample tube will now contain more copies of the target genetic material (if any existed in the original sample) but we, the lab rats, cannot actually see it. It's too tiny. There then needs to be a step whereby the amplified sample is analysed and this can be done by doing a technique called agarose gel electrophoresis. This involves injecting the sample from the PCR process into pre cut wells, within a gel matrix. The gel sits in a solution containing electrolytes. The pores (holes) in the matrix are of the size required to let fragments of genetic information move through. DNA and RNA are negatively charged so you can separate samples of genetic material through the gel by applying an electric current through the liquid medium. The post-PCR sample is first "tagged" with a fluorescent dye so it can be visualised later. One of the wells in the gel is for a reference genetic sample. For the Covid diagnosis, this will be the known sequence in the spike protein that is being looked for. Once the current has been applied (takes 30-40mins), the gel is removed from the liquid and placed in a machine that can pick up the fluorescent signal from any genetic material present. If the fluorescence pattern in one sample matches the reference sample, then a positive outcome for SARS-CoV-2 is recorded. So, PCR is only one of many processes required to ascertain whether a swab sample does contain evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's true to say that PCR will amplify any SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in this sample. It cannot tell you if someone is contagious etc. We don't know enough about the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 to know whether there is significant viral shedding after an infectious stage or to what extent asymptomatic people are contagious. Governments the world over are erring on the side of caution, therefore, and asking anyone who tests positive to isolate themselves. In the future, once we have better understanding and data on the period of shedding and infectiousness, we can perhaps take a different approach. It's worth noting that everyone banging on about flu etc. PCR is used to detect flu in samples too, the only difference being that the primer sequences required for flu identification would be different and the reference sequence used in electrophoresis would be specific to the influenza virus being detected. There are myriad influenza viruses and it is time consuming and expensive to conduct these diagnostic tests en mass. In general, it is not necessary to identify influenza specifically in patients because there is no curative treatment for influenza and only supportive general treatment can be offered in hospital, which is given irrespective of what a diagnostic test says. In a "normal" year, reference samples are taken to monitor flu in the community and hospitals, but mass testing isn't used because for most people, flu is self limiting and requires no specific treatment. It is also considerably less infectious than Covid-19 and most people have some level of background immunity to influenza viruses, having encountered variations of them every year since birth. Everyone on Earth was naïve to SARS-CoV-2 as of November (ish) 2019." Thank you for that. It's the contents of paragraph 2 and 9 that I've been banging on about since early summer and been told I didn't know what I was talking about safe to say just research and reading in appropriate places to understand a little about it. You get labelled a doubter if you are open enough to question certain things even if youre not denying the severity of the virus. It's just some data may not be quite as factual as they're trying to make it out to be. Again it doesn't deter from the fact it's very contagious and is killing a lot of people. Sometimes the pursuit of truth can lead you in strange directions and some think you're lost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. . Incorrect. The labs do not set the threshold, the manufacturers of the PCR test do. A freedom of information request to the Scottish government revealed all the manufacturers set a maximum of "around 40 cycles" That same FOI request also revealed the tests they use can not tell the difference between live or dead virus. There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). PCR is not a test. It is a bog standard molecular biology technique for taking small amounts of genetic material (RNA or DNA) and making more of it. The amount of genetic material you gain on a cotton swab of the oropharyngeal cavity will be too small to be visible in the assays used further down the diagnosis process. PCR involves using cycles of heating and cooling using a machine called a thermocycler. Yes, many different brands exist, but they all do the same basic thing. The really expensive ones can be controlled wirelessly etc whereas cheaper ones require someone to manually press buttons etc. To produce copies of genetic material (to amplify the sample from the swab), you need not only heating and cooling (which is what the thermocycler does), but you also need to include enzymes, "spare" template genetic material (called nucleotides) and primers (bits of DNA or RNA designed to attach to a specific sequence, in this case, a sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gene). All of these primers, nucleotides and enzymes are laboratory reagents and can be purchased from a multitude of suppliers. These same reagents also have other applications in biology and so are not only used in PCR reactions. Once the PCR cycles of heating and cooling are finished, the sample tube will now contain more copies of the target genetic material (if any existed in the original sample) but we, the lab rats, cannot actually see it. It's too tiny. There then needs to be a step whereby the amplified sample is analysed and this can be done by doing a technique called agarose gel electrophoresis. This involves injecting the sample from the PCR process into pre cut wells, within a gel matrix. The gel sits in a solution containing electrolytes. The pores (holes) in the matrix are of the size required to let fragments of genetic information move through. DNA and RNA are negatively charged so you can separate samples of genetic material through the gel by applying an electric current through the liquid medium. The post-PCR sample is first "tagged" with a fluorescent dye so it can be visualised later. One of the wells in the gel is for a reference genetic sample. For the Covid diagnosis, this will be the known sequence in the spike protein that is being looked for. Once the current has been applied (takes 30-40mins), the gel is removed from the liquid and placed in a machine that can pick up the fluorescent signal from any genetic material present. If the fluorescence pattern in one sample matches the reference sample, then a positive outcome for SARS-CoV-2 is recorded. So, PCR is only one of many processes required to ascertain whether a swab sample does contain evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's true to say that PCR will amplify any SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in this sample. It cannot tell you if someone is contagious etc. We don't know enough about the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 to know whether there is significant viral shedding after an infectious stage or to what extent asymptomatic people are contagious. Governments the world over are erring on the side of caution, therefore, and asking anyone who tests positive to isolate themselves. In the future, once we have better understanding and data on the period of shedding and infectiousness, we can perhaps take a different approach. It's worth noting that everyone banging on about flu etc. PCR is used to detect flu in samples too, the only difference being that the primer sequences required for flu identification would be different and the reference sequence used in electrophoresis would be specific to the influenza virus being detected. There are myriad influenza viruses and it is time consuming and expensive to conduct these diagnostic tests en mass. In general, it is not necessary to identify influenza specifically in patients because there is no curative treatment for influenza and only supportive general treatment can be offered in hospital, which is given irrespective of what a diagnostic test says. In a "normal" year, reference samples are taken to monitor flu in the community and hospitals, but mass testing isn't used because for most people, flu is self limiting and requires no specific treatment. It is also considerably less infectious than Covid-19 and most people have some level of background immunity to influenza viruses, having encountered variations of them every year since birth. Everyone on Earth was naïve to SARS-CoV-2 as of November (ish) 2019." What's this?? Actual knowledge?? Thanks for the lucid and coherent breakdown - really interesting. I wasn't even sure this level of sense was allowed amidst the at best anti-science and at worst completely moronic bullshit that some people post on here... I mean, we've had everything from pseudo-science to citing a few Portuguese judges as an authority on medical testing...  Think I'll put my faith in the people who know what they're talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science, bitches "Science and its interpretation changes with knowledge though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science, bitches
Science and its interpretation changes with knowledge though."... And she quite clearly has the requisite knowledge | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science, bitches
Science and its interpretation changes with knowledge though.
... And she quite clearly has the requisite knowledge"Indeed. There was no doubt as per my response to it. My response to yours wasn't disagreeing but putting a clause as people over use science says as if it cannot be contested. That's all I was implying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science, bitches
Science and its interpretation changes with knowledge though.
... And she quite clearly has the requisite knowledge
Indeed. There was no doubt as per my response to it.
My response to yours wasn't disagreeing but putting a clause as people over use science says as if it cannot be contested. That's all I was implying."Fair enough | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. . Incorrect. The labs do not set the threshold, the manufacturers of the PCR test do. A freedom of information request to the Scottish government revealed all the manufacturers set a maximum of "around 40 cycles" That same FOI request also revealed the tests they use can not tell the difference between live or dead virus. There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). PCR is not a test. It is a bog standard molecular biology technique for taking small amounts of genetic material (RNA or DNA) and making more of it. The amount of genetic material you gain on a cotton swab of the oropharyngeal cavity will be too small to be visible in the assays used further down the diagnosis process. PCR involves using cycles of heating and cooling using a machine called a thermocycler. Yes, many different brands exist, but they all do the same basic thing. The really expensive ones can be controlled wirelessly etc whereas cheaper ones require someone to manually press buttons etc. To produce copies of genetic material (to amplify the sample from the swab), you need not only heating and cooling (which is what the thermocycler does), but you also need to include enzymes, "spare" template genetic material (called nucleotides) and primers (bits of DNA or RNA designed to attach to a specific sequence, in this case, a sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gene). All of these primers, nucleotides and enzymes are laboratory reagents and can be purchased from a multitude of suppliers. These same reagents also have other applications in biology and so are not only used in PCR reactions. Once the PCR cycles of heating and cooling are finished, the sample tube will now contain more copies of the target genetic material (if any existed in the original sample) but we, the lab rats, cannot actually see it. It's too tiny. There then needs to be a step whereby the amplified sample is analysed and this can be done by doing a technique called agarose gel electrophoresis. This involves injecting the sample from the PCR process into pre cut wells, within a gel matrix. The gel sits in a solution containing electrolytes. The pores (holes) in the matrix are of the size required to let fragments of genetic information move through. DNA and RNA are negatively charged so you can separate samples of genetic material through the gel by applying an electric current through the liquid medium. The post-PCR sample is first "tagged" with a fluorescent dye so it can be visualised later. One of the wells in the gel is for a reference genetic sample. For the Covid diagnosis, this will be the known sequence in the spike protein that is being looked for. Once the current has been applied (takes 30-40mins), the gel is removed from the liquid and placed in a machine that can pick up the fluorescent signal from any genetic material present. If the fluorescence pattern in one sample matches the reference sample, then a positive outcome for SARS-CoV-2 is recorded. So, PCR is only one of many processes required to ascertain whether a swab sample does contain evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's true to say that PCR will amplify any SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in this sample. It cannot tell you if someone is contagious etc. We don't know enough about the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 to know whether there is significant viral shedding after an infectious stage or to what extent asymptomatic people are contagious. Governments the world over are erring on the side of caution, therefore, and asking anyone who tests positive to isolate themselves. In the future, once we have better understanding and data on the period of shedding and infectiousness, we can perhaps take a different approach. It's worth noting that everyone banging on about flu etc. PCR is used to detect flu in samples too, the only difference being that the primer sequences required for flu identification would be different and the reference sequence used in electrophoresis would be specific to the influenza virus being detected. There are myriad influenza viruses and it is time consuming and expensive to conduct these diagnostic tests en mass. In general, it is not necessary to identify influenza specifically in patients because there is no curative treatment for influenza and only supportive general treatment can be offered in hospital, which is given irrespective of what a diagnostic test says. In a "normal" year, reference samples are taken to monitor flu in the community and hospitals, but mass testing isn't used because for most people, flu is self limiting and requires no specific treatment. It is also considerably less infectious than Covid-19 and most people have some level of background immunity to influenza viruses, having encountered variations of them every year since birth. Everyone on Earth was naïve to SARS-CoV-2 as of November (ish) 2019." Mrs KC, thank you very much for this explanation. I had a vague awareness of the principles of PCR but knew none of the details. You gave a clear and concise description; this is what good science writing for the layman should be like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PCR testing was never meant to be used as it has been. 50% accurate at best. WHO said masks do not work in march 2010. Look around you now. WHO said herd immunity will work. Now removed from its site. Neil Ferguson has been wrong on everything he has ever been involved with. CJD and Foot and mouth are but 2. Lockdowns do not work. If they did we would not be in another lockdown. Look at the date from Ivor Cummins and many other non government paid experts who have not/are NOT linked to big corrupt Pharma companies. Unlike Witless and Halfcock. Proven Vaccines do work and covid is real..before the hysterical BBC sheeple start screaming antivaxer and covdenier. " Sars-Cov-2 PCR tests have far higher than 50% accuracy levels. The evidence of the benefits of mask usage, like many other aspects around this virus, has increased this year, with more recent evidence indicating how they offer protection. Official advice has thus been improved, hence masks now being recommended. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" . Hence why the WHO are now recommending 20 cycles. My understanding is that cycles and thresholds had already been set in certain labs, and most of the heat from this has come from outsiders who are grasping at straws denying the seriousness of this. . Incorrect. The labs do not set the threshold, the manufacturers of the PCR test do. A freedom of information request to the Scottish government revealed all the manufacturers set a maximum of "around 40 cycles" That same FOI request also revealed the tests they use can not tell the difference between live or dead virus. There's no such thing as a "manufacturer" of a PCR test (PCR, not PRC. PCR = polymerase chain reaction. PRC = People's Republic of China, which is quite different). PCR is not a test. It is a bog standard molecular biology technique for taking small amounts of genetic material (RNA or DNA) and making more of it. The amount of genetic material you gain on a cotton swab of the oropharyngeal cavity will be too small to be visible in the assays used further down the diagnosis process. PCR involves using cycles of heating and cooling using a machine called a thermocycler. Yes, many different brands exist, but they all do the same basic thing. The really expensive ones can be controlled wirelessly etc whereas cheaper ones require someone to manually press buttons etc. To produce copies of genetic material (to amplify the sample from the swab), you need not only heating and cooling (which is what the thermocycler does), but you also need to include enzymes, "spare" template genetic material (called nucleotides) and primers (bits of DNA or RNA designed to attach to a specific sequence, in this case, a sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gene). All of these primers, nucleotides and enzymes are laboratory reagents and can be purchased from a multitude of suppliers. These same reagents also have other applications in biology and so are not only used in PCR reactions. Once the PCR cycles of heating and cooling are finished, the sample tube will now contain more copies of the target genetic material (if any existed in the original sample) but we, the lab rats, cannot actually see it. It's too tiny. There then needs to be a step whereby the amplified sample is analysed and this can be done by doing a technique called agarose gel electrophoresis. This involves injecting the sample from the PCR process into pre cut wells, within a gel matrix. The gel sits in a solution containing electrolytes. The pores (holes) in the matrix are of the size required to let fragments of genetic information move through. DNA and RNA are negatively charged so you can separate samples of genetic material through the gel by applying an electric current through the liquid medium. The post-PCR sample is first "tagged" with a fluorescent dye so it can be visualised later. One of the wells in the gel is for a reference genetic sample. For the Covid diagnosis, this will be the known sequence in the spike protein that is being looked for. Once the current has been applied (takes 30-40mins), the gel is removed from the liquid and placed in a machine that can pick up the fluorescent signal from any genetic material present. If the fluorescence pattern in one sample matches the reference sample, then a positive outcome for SARS-CoV-2 is recorded. So, PCR is only one of many processes required to ascertain whether a swab sample does contain evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's true to say that PCR will amplify any SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in this sample. It cannot tell you if someone is contagious etc. We don't know enough about the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 to know whether there is significant viral shedding after an infectious stage or to what extent asymptomatic people are contagious. Governments the world over are erring on the side of caution, therefore, and asking anyone who tests positive to isolate themselves. In the future, once we have better understanding and data on the period of shedding and infectiousness, we can perhaps take a different approach. It's worth noting that everyone banging on about flu etc. PCR is used to detect flu in samples too, the only difference being that the primer sequences required for flu identification would be different and the reference sequence used in electrophoresis would be specific to the influenza virus being detected. There are myriad influenza viruses and it is time consuming and expensive to conduct these diagnostic tests en mass. In general, it is not necessary to identify influenza specifically in patients because there is no curative treatment for influenza and only supportive general treatment can be offered in hospital, which is given irrespective of what a diagnostic test says. In a "normal" year, reference samples are taken to monitor flu in the community and hospitals, but mass testing isn't used because for most people, flu is self limiting and requires no specific treatment. It is also considerably less infectious than Covid-19 and most people have some level of background immunity to influenza viruses, having encountered variations of them every year since birth. Everyone on Earth was naïve to SARS-CoV-2 as of November (ish) 2019." Long... But schooled. Thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""WHO reminds Invitro Diagnostics users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." From the recent WHO update/ reminder to world labs about how to actually carry out the PCR tests. All these seem a little late in the day if you ask me when life changing decisions have been made on the basis of PCR test results. But anyway. The reason for sharing the quote was because it suggests that the risk of false positives would've perhaps been higher towards the end of summer (outwith flu season, therefore covid prevalence would naturally have been expected to have dropped) So if we assume WHO is correct and there were many more false positives at that time, does it mean that much of the hysteria around October which led to new local lockdowns up and down the country was perhaps unwarranted....at that time? " No, in October we were back to high prevalence. Low prevalence is perhaps understandable to argue for the summer, but it's more appropriate to argue that there's a risk of false positives for places like New Zealand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""WHO reminds Invitro Diagnostics users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." From the recent WHO update/ reminder to world labs about how to actually carry out the PCR tests. All these seem a little late in the day if you ask me when life changing decisions have been made on the basis of PCR test results. But anyway. The reason for sharing the quote was because it suggests that the risk of false positives would've perhaps been higher towards the end of summer (outwith flu season, therefore covid prevalence would naturally have been expected to have dropped) So if we assume WHO is correct and there were many more false positives at that time, does it mean that much of the hysteria around October which led to new local lockdowns up and down the country was perhaps unwarranted....at that time? No, in October we were back to high prevalence. Low prevalence is perhaps understandable to argue for the summer, but it's more appropriate to argue that there's a risk of false positives for places like New Zealand." the evidence for high prevalence being...pcr test results? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""WHO reminds Invitro Diagnostics users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." From the recent WHO update/ reminder to world labs about how to actually carry out the PCR tests. All these seem a little late in the day if you ask me when life changing decisions have been made on the basis of PCR test results. But anyway. The reason for sharing the quote was because it suggests that the risk of false positives would've perhaps been higher towards the end of summer (outwith flu season, therefore covid prevalence would naturally have been expected to have dropped) So if we assume WHO is correct and there were many more false positives at that time, does it mean that much of the hysteria around October which led to new local lockdowns up and down the country was perhaps unwarranted....at that time? No, in October we were back to high prevalence. Low prevalence is perhaps understandable to argue for the summer, but it's more appropriate to argue that there's a risk of false positives for places like New Zealand. the evidence for high prevalence being...pcr test results? "Percentage positivity of them. There's a threshold above which it's indicative you're not testing enough. I don't remember the specifics from October off the top of my head, but we were in the shit by then. Just not as deep in the shit as we are now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WHO also says; "Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information." The drive to test people without symptoms is certainly questionable in light of this and what has been said previously. " Is there any update of the science around asymptomatic people being infectious? Or not infectious.? Or how infectious? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just want to say thank you for this thread. There has been some really interesting and informative comments, especially from Kinky couple. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"WHO also says; "Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information." The drive to test people without symptoms is certainly questionable in light of this and what has been said previously. Is there any update of the science around asymptomatic people being infectious? Or not infectious.? Or how infectious? " There was a meta study done that showed that the chance of catching covid from an infected person in your household was about 16% but if the the infected person was asymptomatic then the chance fell to 0.7%. That would suggest asymptomatic people are about 20 times less infectious. See ' Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with the PCR test is that it cannot determine viral load. The higher the cycle threshold, the more sensitive it is. There is no across the board standardised testing for it. No one knows how many cycles each country is using though it's generally thought to be between 35 and 40. It's known that above 30 Ct can induce a 97% false positive rate and this is what most countries are using. You'll detect fragments of the virus of no particular significance. It grinds my gears when you hear the news saying X new # of cases today. More accurately it's X # of positive tests which do not necessarily a case make. An international panel of scientists savaged the Corman-Drosten paper which was approved by the Eurosurveillence board without any peer review and served as the basis for international Covid testing. They demanded the paper be retracted based on numerous grave errors. So now you have a situation where you have inflated number of "cases" based on merely a positive test unfit for purpose. Everyone now admitted to hospital gets one. Most have co morbidities. If they die within 28 days of a positive "test" its counted as a covid death. This explains why covid "cases" and "deaths" are spiking. And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to?" fair points... The labs were I worked had been testing since Nov19!... The issue is getting facts out not fiction.. Great point about number of cases rather than people absoluelty under the virus. Classic example of rubbish reporting NZ says only 4 deaths .. Bollocks their laws dictate what can or can't be put on a death cert. I have family working in ICU there and on their ward alone they lost an average of four people a day, mainly C19 in people with existing Resipatory conditions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fact we could go further. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia) forbids the use of self swab PCR tests given the high risk of false negatives. So maybe we're underestimating the extent of the problem, given most PCR swabs in the UK are self administered "opposite happening in NHS issued test kits for staff lots pinging in as positive but full testing leaves them as negative.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PCR testing was never meant to be used as it has been. 50% accurate at best. WHO said masks do not work in march 2010. Look around you now. WHO said herd immunity will work. Now removed from its site. Neil Ferguson has been wrong on everything he has ever been involved with. CJD and Foot and mouth are but 2. Lockdowns do not work. If they did we would not be in another lockdown. Look at the date from Ivor Cummins and many other non government paid experts who have not/are NOT linked to big corrupt Pharma companies. Unlike Witless and Halfcock. Proven Vaccines do work and covid is real..before the hysterical BBC sheeple start screaming antivaxer and covdenier. " You are embarrassing yourself. PCR isn’t perfect but If PCR was really 50% inaccurate the entire healthcare service who are on a weekly testing regime would all be at home in isolation having falsely tested positive either this week or last week .
We are nearly at 100,000 deaths yet 2/3 of the population has yet to encounter the virus. Without restrictions this virus spreads exponentially, without restrictions 36,000 in hospital this week would be 72,000 next week, 140,000 the week after.
Do wise up and grow up and save yourself future embarrassment.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PCR testing was never meant to be used as it has been. 50% accurate at best. WHO said masks do not work in march 2010. Look around you now. WHO said herd immunity will work. Now removed from its site. Neil Ferguson has been wrong on everything he has ever been involved with. CJD and Foot and mouth are but 2. Lockdowns do not work. If they did we would not be in another lockdown. Look at the date from Ivor Cummins and many other non government paid experts who have not/are NOT linked to big corrupt Pharma companies. Unlike Witless and Halfcock. Proven Vaccines do work and covid is real..before the hysterical BBC sheeple start screaming antivaxer and covdenier. You are embarrassing yourself. PCR isn’t perfect but If PCR was really 50% inaccurate the entire healthcare service who are on a weekly testing regime would all be at home in isolation having falsely tested positive either this week or last week .
We are nearly at 100,000 deaths yet 2/3 of the population has yet to encounter the virus. Without restrictions this virus spreads exponentially, without restrictions 36,000 in hospital this week would be 72,000 next week, 140,000 the week after.
Do wise up and grow up and save yourself future embarrassment.
"And that's just deaths. Long Covid is devastating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to?fair points... The labs were I worked had been testing since Nov19!... The issue is getting facts out not fiction.. Great point about number of cases rather than people absoluelty under the virus. Classic example of rubbish reporting NZ says only 4 deaths .. Bollocks their laws dictate what can or can't be put on a death cert. I have family working in ICU there and on their ward alone they lost an average of four people a day, mainly C19 in people with existing Resipatory conditions " That's why under the other thread "Japan" I wondered whether there is under-reporting (maybe not intentionally - financial constraint or difference in definition/criteria) in countries where the number is very low (although their population is high/densely populated) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And curiously...where has the flu disappeared to?fair points... The labs were I worked had been testing since Nov19!... The issue is getting facts out not fiction.. Great point about number of cases rather than people absoluelty under the virus. Classic example of rubbish reporting NZ says only 4 deaths .. Bollocks their laws dictate what can or can't be put on a death cert. I have family working in ICU there and on their ward alone they lost an average of four people a day, mainly C19 in people with existing Resipatory conditions That's why under the other thread "Japan" I wondered whether there is under-reporting (maybe not intentionally - financial constraint or difference in definition/criteria) in countries where the number is very low (although their population is high/densely populated)" I think it's a valid point in lower income countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting update to this: it would seem, per a virology blog I loosely follow (Virology Down Under) that the claims of the OP are the result of a misinterpreted WHO document. If I'm reading it correctly, and I'm certainly not proficient in PCR techniques, it is *not* saying that the values should be decreased, as the OP has claimed, but that those less familiar with PCR as part of a diagnostic method should be mindful of weak results. The blog also helpfully points out that the overwhelming majority of UK results still count even with a significant reduction in the cycle number. You're welcome "Debunked? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting update to this: it would seem, per a virology blog I loosely follow (Virology Down Under) that the claims of the OP are the result of a misinterpreted WHO document. If I'm reading it correctly, and I'm certainly not proficient in PCR techniques, it is *not* saying that the values should be decreased, as the OP has claimed, but that those less familiar with PCR as part of a diagnostic method should be mindful of weak results. The blog also helpfully points out that the overwhelming majority of UK results still count even with a significant reduction in the cycle number. You're welcome
Debunked? "Would seem so. People misread this and ran with it to tell convenient fairy tales. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing the OP doesn't know the difference between end-point PCR and qPCR "Seeing as it's been referred to as PRC for most of the thread, the majority haven't a clue what PCR is at all... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing the OP doesn't know the difference between end-point PCR and qPCR
Seeing as it's been referred to as PRC for most of the thread, the majority haven't a clue what PCR is at all..."I have a bit of a clue (thank you ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ha, polymerase reaction chain is a thing, right? Maybe Mullis Kary was right when talking about IHV." I read it as People's Republic of China... It's kinda sad I won't be teaching PCR protocol this year. We usually do a crime scene solving practical that's loads of fun  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"STR typing? Great fun. " Yup. Whodunnit - I write a whole crime scenario involving staff and stuff. Occasionally premier League footballers. It's fun.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
