NYTimes: Overly-sensitive COVID tests are dramatically inflating case numbers

It should not count as a case unless someone is sick with symptoms. That is how every other seasonal virus is tracked. We do not test for the flu and count asymptomatic cases, if we did there would be 100x as many flu cases each year. If we tested every person that died for the flu and counted every positive person as a flu death, the deaths reported due to the flu would be astronomical. And there is the lie; is this virus real, yes. Can it kill, yes. Can many viruses kill, yes. Have we treated, tracked, traced, tested for, and attributed this coronavirus far differently than any other virus in modern history; a hands down yes. Many people across this country should be asking what the hell are we doing when 90% of all the cases being reported of in people that showed no symptoms. What the hell are we doing? The change at the CDC is right, we should not be testing people that have no symptoms and we should stop assuming asymptomatic spread is as prevalent as some would love for everyone to believe. The insanity must be traded for a realistic approach to dealing with this somewhat hard-hitting virus.

The test is for a portion of human genetic code, not for a virus.

Thus every human, when given enough tests, will always eventually test positive.

$$$$$$$$$

Follow it^

I think this plays into the fact that we are dealing with a new virus and don't yet know some of the finer points. For instance, what does the viral load have to be for it to be transmittable?

This also seems like a case where the reporting is only going to cause confusion and possibly hinder testing. Also, it is a test at a point in time, Could the low value later become a higher one?

YMMV wrote:

$$$$$$$$$

Follow it^

Jeff did it

Bill helped

Jack mighta been involved

Elon publicly fought against it though

So if a lot of people weren't *really* infected, then that means that we're that much farther away from herd immunity, right? Right?

*ahem* wrote:

So if a lot of people weren't *really* infected, then that means that we're that much farther away from herd immunity, right? Right?

Its unclear what it means in practical terms. This is a valid question though.

One of my colleagues was positive the other day at a employer mandated test. He is asymptomatic and 55 or so. Caught him by surprise. I work in another building and had no contact for weeks. And I was negative. So no concerns there. However..

Could be a false positive--lab error, contamination, etc.

Could be he was just infected and he will get sick in a day or two

Could mean he was just asymptomatic but still infectious.

Could mean he had a vary minor case that didn't register even with him, and he is post infectious but still shedding virus.

Clearly we can say that asymptomatic people are spreading infection, There is no doubt about that, We don't know what percent of the "positive" people are spreaders vs post-infectious vs artifacts etc..

I'm also struck by all the experts suddenly surprised that 37 or 40 PCR cycles were typical. On the other hand, with all the observable mayhem (180,000 dead) its understandable to cast a wide net at least initially until things are better understood.

Now achieving a "better understanding" requires a plan and leadership. Which we lack entirely.

pzs'jdgf wrote:

[quote]*ahem* wrote:

I'm also struck by all the experts suddenly surprised that 37 or 40 PCR cycles were typical. On the other hand, with all the observable mayhem (180,000 dead) its understandable to cast a wide net at least initially until things are better understood.

Very possible now that it's only 18,000 truly dead from COVID.

Why not 1800?

States classify many deaths as Covid-caused by matching datasets of positive PCR tests with datasets of deaths. We now know PCR tests vastly overstate the reality of active Covid infections.

Which means using PCR test datasets to classify deaths as Covid overstates "deaths from Covid."

They still have not identified in a laboratory the virus they are calling ‘"Covid 19’." This means that they cannot test for "Covid 19" (and it also means that anyone who tells you that they know someone who’s had "Covid 19" is talking total BS). What they test for is ‘coronavirus’, which is an umbrella term for various colds and flu.

As more ct-qPCR tests were done in mid March the CDC stopped verification of results coming from private labs; we knew in March PCR false positive rate was reported at around 50% in China , in June 80%, in August 90% officially false positives worldwide due to inflated CT values alone and FDA urged doctors in May not to rely on the test alone to make diagnosis of a COVID case.

On top of that there is complete lack of specificity which give positive results for a variety of viruses and bacteria commonly existing in tissues of countless millions of patients of other common respiratory diseases worldwide. Then there is the PCR's complete inability to detect live virus and distinguish it from dead or blocked virus existing in tissue for months often after infection is gone regardless if CT indicates bigger or smaller load and hence provides no way to predict level and capability of spreading infection.

And then there is so far no empirically verified common infection model for SC2 and specific mechanisms of infection. And then there is complete lack of established causality between SC2 infection, it’s threshold, load, location, considering immune response via variety of resistance mechanisms and vaguely catch- all symptoms now defined as COVID.

It is all diagnostic crap as the inventor of PCR test warned and the NYT here makes only the narrow point of promoting the oxymoron of “correct” much less sensitive testing.

The vaccines will not make people PCR test negative and hence as soon as supposed vaccines are developed, the PCR as well as serological tests that can reveal failure of PCR tests and vaccines themselves will be rigged or forgotten.

The world is ruled by complete, total and utter psychopaths. I understand why many people have a hard job getting their head around this.

Pan(ic)demic wrote:

pzs'jdgf wrote:

[quote]*ahem* wrote:

I'm also struck by all the experts suddenly surprised that 37 or 40 PCR cycles were typical. On the other hand, with all the observable mayhem (180,000 dead) its understandable to cast a wide net at least initially until things are better understood.

Very possible now that it's only 18,000 truly dead from COVID.

The CDC currently states that only 6% of Covid deaths died from "only Covid." Of those 94% there were 2.6 co-morbidities per deceased. Virtually all were elderly and most of those from nursing homes where policies destroyed these fragile people. Investigations will reveal the % from nursing homes is far higher than what we are currently being told.

The "pandemic" narrative is crumbling. We wouldn't even be having these types of conversations if we truly had a pandemic commensurate with the severity of the policies we are seeing.

We need investigations of the WHO, Imperial College, CDC etc...and all the pertinent individuals who were responsible for these crimes including media. The damage has been tremendous and it is going to accrue until enough people speak up.

Pan(ic)demic wrote:

pzs'jdgf wrote:

[quote]*ahem* wrote:

I'm also struck by all the experts suddenly surprised that 37 or 40 PCR cycles were typical. On the other hand, with all the observable mayhem (180,000 dead) its understandable to cast a wide net at least initially until things are better understood.

Very possible now that it's only 18,000 truly dead from COVID.

I don't think so. The excess mortality strongly suggests COVID has killed probably more than 180K. Its probably an undercount.

I'm also in the biz on the research side but with many clinical colleagues and friends and I can assure you that the deaths and sick people are very real.

From RTE in Ireland:

“Official data shows that the median age of death from Covid-19 in Ireland by the end of July was 84 years old. This means that half of those who died were older than that. The data also shows that 79% of deaths were over the age of 75 and that the majority of those who died suffered from underlying health conditions.“

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

We do not test for the flu and count asymptomatic cases, if we did there would be 100x as many flu cases each year.

I agree.

With no excess deaths and not the long-term effects we’ve seen...so who cares.

This news can be bad, I hope it is false.

facts and reason wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

We do not test for the flu and count asymptomatic cases, if we did there would be 100x as many flu cases each year.

I agree.

Zero clue how flu deaths and cases are estimated each year. CDC estimates ~10-40 MILLION cases each year. Wow, I wonder what 100x that is.

Word salad with no evidence for how common/rare asymptomatic spread is.

I agree it would be good to know likely how infectious someone with a Ct value of 40 is compared to 30. There's probably some inverse correlation with Ct value and infectiousness. We just don't know enough and I don't really fault test designers for sticking with a conservative positive threshold. Do we have the data to justify changing it? I don't know

+1

Exactly right - there are so many asymptomatic people that test positive it's not even funny! But this isn't a hard-hitting virus anymore - it's mutated into a mild cold virus. Look at the debacle with the NFL last week. If the NFL hadn't discovered this, many government officials would be screaming to cancel the season because of an outbreak of asymptomatic players!

And Sweden! ?

And the UK: ?

The test is simply too unreliable to used for any valid reason unless someone has specific COVID-19 symptoms (not just a running nose or sore throat, etc).

And these false positives add up with asymptomatic cases that freaks out the government leaders to implement mask mandates, enforce more restrictions and roll back to lockdowns. Unless the ICUs are filling up with what appears to be COVID-19 patients, then high case numbers of asymptomatic people means nothing and just gives more power to the government leaders to start all again with their drocanian lockdowns. Here's Hawaii back into full lockdown stay-at-home orders! ?

And Spain is freaking out all over again! ?

r RT PCR;

Uses chemical to strip out everything that might interfere. RT then changes target virus RNA into DNA since PCR only works with DNA.

PCR then thermal cycles this, doubling any DNA present each time, typically 35 times. 2^35 = 35 billion.

The reagents include a target marker which emits die on encoutering target DNA.

In real time RT PCR, this is checked each cycle and so you can stop when you have the confidence you need.

In non real time, you just wait till the end of the number of cycles, then check dye levels.

The test takes a long time to develop since you have to get the cleaner, the RT, the target, dye etc all 'correct'.

The amount and timing of the dye relates to quantitivity.

But how can you possibly say that someone who has the virus in them isnt 'infected'? The only way to do this is to set accurate infection load (by immune system response) or accurate symptom levels (coughs per minutes - again dependant on each individual sensitivity to cough response), or things as absolutely ridiculous as that.

Oh, and you would have to swab everyone absolutely the same despite different physical characteristics and fluid dynamics in their throat, nose and the rest.

We have a system and then the 'statistics' are relevant to that system, until we understand the systems better and can interpret them better.

The real question is; at what viral load does an asymptomatic person shed sufficient viruses, in which conditions, such that people of known sensitivity will receive sufficient viral load. And how does this change with incubation etc over time.

See how difficult this is?