ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2973 of 3903
« First < 1973247328732923296329692970297129722973 29742975297629772983302330733473 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
O.city 09:15 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Great to hear!
Yeah, hopefully she stays with the just no smell and no other symptoms. We'll see though.
[Reply]
petegz28 10:19 AM 09-18-2020
Growing research indicates many COVID-19 cases might not be infectious at all

Elevated 'cycle thresholds' may be detecting virus long after it is past the point of infection.

A growing body of research suggests that a significant number of confirmed COVID-19 infections in the U.S. — perhaps as many as 9 out of every 10 — may not be infectious at all, with much of the country's testing equipment possibly picking up mere fragments of the disease rather than full-blown infections.

Many politicians, meanwhile — including most state governors in the U.S. — have tied reopening policies to the number of cases detected in the local community, with regions and localities often being permitted to reopen in staggered "phases" only when they have reached successively lower benchmarks of average new daily cases in the area

Numerous institutions, meanwhile, have adopted testing protocols in an attempt to preempt the spread of the virus. American colleges and universities, for instance, have turned to mass testing in order to closely monitor incidences of the disease among students, particularly residential students living on campus.

Yet a burgeoning line of scientific inquiry suggests that many confirmed infections of COVID-19 may actually be just residual traces of the virus itself, a contention that — if true — may suggest both that current high levels of positive viruses are clinically insignificant and that the mitigation measures used to suppress them may be excessive.

At issue is the method by which many COVID-19 tests detect a patient's viral load within a given sample. Polymerase chain reaction tests, which have been widely deployed to determine if individuals are infected with the disease, function by amplifying DNA samples to the point that an antigen can be detected and classified.

The "cycle threshold" is the number of amplification cycles a PCR test goes through before a target pathogen is detected. A lower cycle threshold means that a higher amount of the virus was present in the sample; a higher threshold means the machine had to work harder to detect the virus in the sample, indicating a lower viral load and more likely a non-infectious patient.

According to a rundown of PCR tests compiled by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, many manufacturers of PCR tests set the cycle threshold cutoff for a positive sample at up to around 40 cycles, a level numerous public health officials believe is guaranteed to return what are effectively false positive results that have detected fragments of the virus.

"I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," Juliet Morrison, a virology professor at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times in August.

Health authorities elsewhere have indicated similar skepticism of high-threshold tests. A spokeswoman for Taiwan's Central Epidemic Command Center said in June that the agency only assigns positive cases to samples with Cts of 35 or less, with authorities there believing that any samples with Cts of more than 32 are likely (though not definitely) non-infectious.

A team of researchers at Oxford, meanwhile, wrote in a preprint paper last week that, based on a review of various sample collections, swabs requiring more than 30 cycles were "associated with non-infectious samples."

Binary positive-negative test results — in which cycle thresholds are not considered — will "result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health," they wrote.

more story here...
https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ases-might-not
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 10:22 AM 09-18-2020
Say it with me now

AGENDAPOSTING
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 10:24 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Growing research indicates many COVID-19 cases might not be infectious at all

Elevated 'cycle thresholds' may be detecting virus long after it is past the point of infection.

A growing body of research suggests that a significant number of confirmed COVID-19 infections in the U.S. — perhaps as many as 9 out of every 10 — may not be infectious at all, with much of the country's testing equipment possibly picking up mere fragments of the disease rather than full-blown infections.

Many politicians, meanwhile — including most state governors in the U.S. — have tied reopening policies to the number of cases detected in the local community, with regions and localities often being permitted to reopen in staggered "phases" only when they have reached successively lower benchmarks of average new daily cases in the area

Numerous institutions, meanwhile, have adopted testing protocols in an attempt to preempt the spread of the virus. American colleges and universities, for instance, have turned to mass testing in order to closely monitor incidences of the disease among students, particularly residential students living on campus.

Yet a burgeoning line of scientific inquiry suggests that many confirmed infections of COVID-19 may actually be just residual traces of the virus itself, a contention that — if true — may suggest both that current high levels of positive viruses are clinically insignificant and that the mitigation measures used to suppress them may be excessive.

At issue is the method by which many COVID-19 tests detect a patient's viral load within a given sample. Polymerase chain reaction tests, which have been widely deployed to determine if individuals are infected with the disease, function by amplifying DNA samples to the point that an antigen can be detected and classified.

The "cycle threshold" is the number of amplification cycles a PCR test goes through before a target pathogen is detected. A lower cycle threshold means that a higher amount of the virus was present in the sample; a higher threshold means the machine had to work harder to detect the virus in the sample, indicating a lower viral load and more likely a non-infectious patient.

According to a rundown of PCR tests compiled by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, many manufacturers of PCR tests set the cycle threshold cutoff for a positive sample at up to around 40 cycles, a level numerous public health officials believe is guaranteed to return what are effectively false positive results that have detected fragments of the virus.

"I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," Juliet Morrison, a virology professor at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times in August.

Health authorities elsewhere have indicated similar skepticism of high-threshold tests. A spokeswoman for Taiwan's Central Epidemic Command Center said in June that the agency only assigns positive cases to samples with Cts of 35 or less, with authorities there believing that any samples with Cts of more than 32 are likely (though not definitely) non-infectious.

A team of researchers at Oxford, meanwhile, wrote in a preprint paper last week that, based on a review of various sample collections, swabs requiring more than 30 cycles were "associated with non-infectious samples."

Binary positive-negative test results — in which cycle thresholds are not considered — will "result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health," they wrote.

more story here...
https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ases-might-not
And we are quarantining those associated with those positives for 2 weeks out of their lives :-)
[Reply]
TLO 10:34 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Say it with me now

AGENDAPOSTING

A G E N D A P O S T I N G

[Reply]
Donger 10:38 AM 09-18-2020
Is there something new there? We heard about that a while ago.
[Reply]
Pants 10:49 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Is there something new there? We heard about that a while ago.
We have discussed the issue with overly sensitive PCR tests many times in this thread and how those are not ideal because they lead to "false" positives.

The article's assertion that up to 90% of positive test are "clinically trivial" is the big deal. That claim is based on some article from NYT about a hospital in NY.

It's obviously very difficult to arrive at any exact science about the prevalence of positive tests which were not actually contagious.

Another take away is that it seems, based on a number of non-peer-reviewed studies, the PCR cycle threshold should be set to 34 instead of 40.
[Reply]
Donger 10:53 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by Pants:
We have discussed the issue with overly sensitive PCR tests many times in this thread and how those are not ideal because they lead to "false" positives.

The article's assertion that up to 90% of positive test are "clinically trivial" is the big deal. That claim is based on some article from NYT about a hospital in NY.

It's obviously very difficult to arrive at any exact science about the prevalence of positive tests which were not actually contagious.

Another take away is that it seems based on a number of non-peer-reviewed studies that the PCR cycle threshold should be set at 34 instead of 40.

By the way, has anyone heard anything from Hamas at all? That dude has been a ghost for some time now.
Yes, the 90% was mentioned in the NYT article from late August:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

So, again, what's new?
[Reply]
TLO 11:04 AM 09-18-2020
The Big Man supposed to be having a press conference today at 1pm CST and apparently there's gonna be a lot of vaccine talk.
[Reply]
stumppy 11:10 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
The Big Man supposed to be having a press conference today at 1pm CST and apparently there's gonna be a lot of vaccine talk.
:-) Of course there will be. My prediction...."Anyone who wants the vaccine can get the vaccine" By the end of October.

:-) Bank on it.
[Reply]
jdubya 11:10 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
The Big Man supposed to be having a press conference today at 1pm CST and apparently there's gonna be a lot of vaccine talk.
Good to hear. Lets hope its good news so we can get back to normal
[Reply]
BigCatDaddy 11:12 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by stumppy:
:-) Of course there will be. My prediction...."Anyone who wants the vaccine can get the vaccine" By the end of October.

:-) Bank on it.
It's a bet. Loser leaves the thread for good?

It would be nice to get rid of your drive by "Orange Man Bad" comments.
[Reply]
TLO 11:21 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by jdubya:
Good to hear. Lets hope its good news so we can get back to normal
I doubt it's anything earth shattering. But we'll see. Maybe Pfizer has had enough people get infected in their phase 3 trial than expected and things have been accelerated a bit?
[Reply]
Donger 11:22 AM 09-18-2020
FDA head confident they'll produce a safe vaccine: US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said he has “unwavering confidence and trust” in his agency’s ability to approve a Covid-19 vaccine that is safe and effective. “I am often asked about how and when FDA will authorize or approve a vaccine to protect against Covid-19. Here is my answer: when the agency’s scientific experts have completed their review and are ready to do so, and not a moment before,” he tweeted today.
[Reply]
TLO 11:33 AM 09-18-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
FDA head confident they'll produce a safe vaccine: US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said he has “unwavering confidence and trust” in his agency’s ability to approve a Covid-19 vaccine that is safe and effective. “I am often asked about how and when FDA will authorize or approve a vaccine to protect against Covid-19. Here is my answer: when the agency’s scientific experts have completed their review and are ready to do so, and not a moment before,” he tweeted today.
Which is absolutely the way it should be.

We're not getting that today though, are we?
[Reply]
Page 2973 of 3903
« First < 1973247328732923296329692970297129722973 29742975297629772983302330733473 > Last »
Up