misteryan
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2020
- Messages
- 62
- Display Name
Display name:
misteryan
You seem quite intent on starting an argument. Not interested.Yeah, your first sentence had no blame in it at all.
- Status
bnt83
Final Approach
Expanding, if you are asymptomatic and tested positive most employers would be expecting you to self disclose it, then comes the quarantine, IOW unemployment, and if for some unknown reason you keep testing positive with no symptoms, you are screwed or could be looking quarantine until finally someone with an MD admits you are safe to go back to work.
There is a whole lotta CYA stuff going on and very little science/data driving it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/health/cdc-guidelines-coronavirus-testing/index.html
Last edited:
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
The problem with that is that it will alter the numbers of each state, thereby distorting the results seen by states that require a quarantine (e.g. New York). Reasonable numbers are in part due to testing a lot of folks that don't have the virus. If you only test the most likely folks, you'll get a higher positive percentage and the citizens of whichever state will be locked out of a lot of states for a lot longer.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
My county's health officer doesn't think much of the CDC's change in testing guidelines.
“Entirely bizarre”: Santa Clara County health director blasts new CDC coronavirus guidelines
‘If you’ve been in contact with someone who is infected with COVID, you absolutely need to get a test’
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08...atix&utm_medium=video&utm_campaign=highlights
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,039
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
Just curious how your post fits with your sig file, but not I'm not choosing sides or profering my opinion. If the CDC...THE Center for Disease Control...makes a determination or recommendation..and your local Santa Clara district discounts it, is Santa Clara not guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit its opinions?
Last edited:
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,310
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
FWIW ... a family member of mine has/had Covid-19 and had to postpone a needed surgery. They had surgery yesterday after testing positive twice. Our state Department of Health has made it clear that after having Covid you will test positive as you still have the antibodies. In fact a recent study reveals that contrary to popular belief that the Covid antibodies will stay with you for much longer than the 90 days mentioned before. That study has not been peer reviewed as yet but gives promise that herd immunity will happen.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't have any way of forming an opinion on that question, because I don't know what evidence the CDC has given for its change in guidance, and I don't know what evidence our county's health officer is basing her opinion on.
Last edited by a moderator:
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,507
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
That makes no sense. PCR and Antibodies are separate tests and have no logical overlap.
The weak point in PCR is checking for the proteins directly related to the virus. As such, you can still test positive after the virus is "dead" but the proteins are still hanging around in your body. So for many people you will test positive for some period after you are no longer sick. Assuming I understand the science (which is questionable) depending on where the infection occurred within your body and how quickly cells regenerate affects how long the dead virus will hang around.
The problem is we do not have the knowledge and/or technology to determine with reliable testing if the virus is live in a way which can be safely deployed.
Also, there is growing concern about long runner infection where the virus is active for months after initial infection. Note, this is a small group with largely unknown effects and treatments.
@steingar probably can explain this better.
Tim
Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
bnt83
Final Approach
All we need is
Of course there would only be one and it wold be so expensive no one could afford it.
Of course there would only be one and it wold be so expensive no one could afford it.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
PCR does not detect proteins. Indeed PCR won't detect the virus at all, since it's genome is comprised of RNA. Reverse transcription PCR is used to detect coronavirus. The viral RNA is rendered into DNA by the enzyme reverse transcriptase. It can then be amplified by PCR, the polymerase chain reaction (true fact, I used to surf with Kary Mullis before he invented PCR. He lived down the hall from one of my best friends). The assay is quantitative and enormously sensitive, but can only detect an active viral infection. RNA isn't very stable in our cells, and is quickly broken down. If administered incorrectly it can read false positives or false negatives. You can use a nasal swab, sputum, or blood.
An antibody test is a completely different animal. Viruses don't make antibodies, we do, in response to viruses. When we first see a virus we make Ig (immunoglobulin) type M, later on we make type G. These latter antibodies can persist for some time, so an antibody test can tell if you've had a viral infection and to some degree for how long. You still make antibodies long after the viral infection, so the antibody test can't really tell if you're infective. Your antibodies are challenged with proteins from the virus, the assay can detect if any stick. Antibody tests aren't as sensitive as PCR, but they aren't as likely to yield false positives either. You have to have blood to do it, and it takes a bit longer.
An antibody test is a completely different animal. Viruses don't make antibodies, we do, in response to viruses. When we first see a virus we make Ig (immunoglobulin) type M, later on we make type G. These latter antibodies can persist for some time, so an antibody test can tell if you've had a viral infection and to some degree for how long. You still make antibodies long after the viral infection, so the antibody test can't really tell if you're infective. Your antibodies are challenged with proteins from the virus, the assay can detect if any stick. Antibody tests aren't as sensitive as PCR, but they aren't as likely to yield false positives either. You have to have blood to do it, and it takes a bit longer.
misteryan
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2020
- Messages
- 62
- Display Name
Display name:
misteryan
The problem here is that the Centers for Disease Control did not make this determination.
misteryan
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2020
- Messages
- 62
- Display Name
Display name:
misteryan
Every person I know who tested positive (at least 20 people) subsequently tested negative, all but one within the 14-day quarantine period here in NY. You don't continue to test positive indefinitely after you've caught the disease.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
With PCR you shouldn't give a positive result once the virus has cleared your system. You will detect antibodies for some time, the duration depending on the individual.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,039
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
No? Who did? Source?
misteryan
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2020
- Messages
- 62
- Display Name
Display name:
misteryan
You're free to look into it if you're interested. I'm satisfied that this was a political decision, not a medical one. No medical or scientific justification has been given.
GaryM
Pattern Altitude
OK, I think that's very cool. I never met him, but heard him described as the only surfer stoner Nobel laureate in history. And PCR was certainly a game changer.
My brush with nerd fame is a champagne bottle signed by Roald Hoffman, the day he won his Nobel. I was a grad student, and after the announcement the chem department managed to put together quite the drunken party at 10 in the morning. That remains the only autograph I've ever collected.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,507
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
lmao, ok not which is more likely me not understanding what I read about the virus proteins hanging around or bad descriptions I have read. I am willing to bet more on option 1....
Tim
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,310
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
I don't disagree with you. I was passing on what our DHEC department said and the test from MUSC hospital. I would assume (there's that word again) that a world renown hospital would have the information correct.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,507
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Start here: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/26/brett-giroir-coronavirus-testing-cdc-402524
Or search for "cdc test guidelines change"
A fair number of news organizations discussing it. Basically the federal Task Force has been unable to provide ANY science to back the change, and the change while under discussion for a month was approved when Dr. Fauci was having surgery completed and as such was not in the meeting.
Even if done innocently, the appearance is very bad after the leader of the administration has called for reduced testing (even if meant tongue in cheek, it does not go over well).
Tim
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Interesting approach. Make an assertion, then tell others to prove your assertion for you.
misteryan
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2020
- Messages
- 62
- Display Name
Display name:
misteryan
That's actually not what I did at all. I suggested he look into it for himself if he's interested. Nobody has to prove anything to me.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,039
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
I would prefer a number of fair news organizations reporting it, rather than a fair number of proven questionable sources discussing it.
Again, without taking sides, the differences in headlines, descriptions, and coverage of the two political conventions in the main network news channels, the AP, local news sources, etc., makes one's head spin...and "spin" is certainly an appropriate word. I've watched a bit of both conventions via direct feeds (meaning no commentary or talking heads interrupting the presentations), formed my own opinions and reactions, then read the coverage in various sources the next day. One source describes the previous evening as dark, gloomy, and void of substance, while another source describes the very same evening as optimistic, inspiring, and focused on policy, accomplishments, and specific plans for the future. The assertion that "a fair number of news organizations [are] discussing it" means almost nothing at this point, unfortunately.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,507
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
lmao. Sorry but that is funny.
In any case, read the articles, and you will find the recent changes appear to have nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and optics. The main reasons this view exists three fold:
1. Previous self inflicted wounds, creating a lack of trust, and statements made by some individuals which are counter to science and the current gold standard of how to control a pandemic (testing, lots of it).
2. combined with a lack of science or data which is the basis for the change being presented. If actual science and data was behind the change (even if the science/data is weak and not peer reviewed) it would have been presented.
3. Pretty much all previous changes to guidelines were made in a press release and backed up, however feebly. This one was done on the sly without announcing it.
Tim
- Status