COVID-19

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: tungsten

https://commonground.ca/covid-19-5000-shades-of-grey/

Comment from the health pro's?

Koch's postulates were formed before we knew about viral diseases. They do not apply in many cases of viral disease, so using them in this article as a backbone to their commentary is flawed.

As for the tests, the theory of RT-PCR is correctly summarized, but how it is used in practice varies greatly.  It definitely isnt a perfect test for the situation we are in, but im OK with having a few false positives vs false negatives for now.

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: tungsten

https://commonground.ca/covid-19-5000-shades-of-grey/

Comment from the health pro's?

Koch's postulates were formed before we knew about viral diseases. They do not apply in many cases of viral disease, so using them in this article as a backbone to their commentary is flawed.

As for the tests, the theory of RT-PCR is correctly summarized, but how it is used in practice varies greatly.  It definitely isnt a perfect test for the situation we are in, but im OK with having a few false positives vs false negatives for now.

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

It's relevant to this thread.

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

This is going around the internet, if it didnt have an FDA link I wouldnt post it. (Bottom of) Page 39 of this link says:

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with... 

Im not sure what your point here is? The sequence of the virus is well known. You do not need actual virus to create assays to detect the virus. Yay science!

... My point is - does one not need a virus for a pandemic? Does an assay test show ongoing infection? To my knowledge, since it a cultured blood sample, it just shows the presence of... something? And, do you not need a virus isolate to know what you're looking for?

One does not need a virus to create an assay when the sequence is already known. The virus would have been isolated in order to get its genomic sequence initially.  Keeping live virus stocks around is difficult and unnecessarily dangerous.  The current test used will show that there are viral RNA particles circulating in the sample. It means that sample is currently infected with or has recently been infected with the virus of interest. There are plenty of immunology and genomics sources out there to understand how this all works. The assay targets a specific RNA sequence from the virus of interest, so there is little to no chance you are assaying for some other pathogen.

So its a matter of past tense in the article then.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: tungsten

https://commonground.ca/covid-19-5000-shades-of-grey/

Comment from the health pro's?

Koch's postulates were formed before we knew about viral diseases. They do not apply in many cases of viral disease, so using them in this article as a backbone to their commentary is flawed.

As for the tests, the theory of RT-PCR is correctly summarized, but how it is used in practice varies greatly. It definitely isnt a perfect test for the situation we are in, but im OK with having a few false positives vs false negatives for now.

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

It's relevant to this thread.

If you say so. Most comparisons between the flu and Covid (in terms of mortality, reproduction number etc.) are false narratives, but Id be interested to hear what relevance you think there might be.

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: tungsten

https://commonground.ca/covid-19-5000-shades-of-grey/

Comment from the health pro's?

Koch's postulates were formed before we knew about viral diseases. They do not apply in many cases of viral disease, so using them in this article as a backbone to their commentary is flawed.

As for the tests, the theory of RT-PCR is correctly summarized, but how it is used in practice varies greatly. It definitely isnt a perfect test for the situation we are in, but im OK with having a few false positives vs false negatives for now.

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

It's relevant to this thread.

If you say so. Most comparisons between the flu and Covid (in terms of mortality, reproduction number etc.) are false narratives, but Id be interested to hear what relevance you think there might be.

I'd like your interpretation of whatever numbers you find.

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

It's relevant to this thread.

If you say so. Most comparisons between the flu and Covid (in terms of mortality, reproduction number etc.) are false narratives, but Id be interested to hear what relevance you think there might be.

Here, let me help with that... From the CDC:

influenza activity decreased 98%, from a median of 19.34% to 0.33% of submitted respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza. Interseasonal circulation of influenza in the United States (May 17–August 8, 2020; weeks 21–32) is now at historical lows (weekly median 0.20% of samples testing positive in 2020 versus 2.35% in 2019, 1.04% in 2018 and 2.36% in 2017).

And here's Fauci on masks, March 2020:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/12/flashback_march_2020_fauci_says_theres_no_reason_to_be_walking_around_with_a_mask.html?jwsource=cl

White House says covid pandemic is over

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Here, let me help with that... From the CDC:

influenza activity decreased 98%, from a median of 19.34% to 0.33% of submitted respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza. Interseasonal circulation of influenza in the United States (May 17–August 8, 2020; weeks 21–32) is now at historical lows (weekly median 0.20% of samples testing positive in 2020 versus 2.35% in 2019, 1.04% in 2018 and 2.36% in 2017).

And here's Fauci on masks, March 2020:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/12/flashback_march_2020_fauci_says_theres_no_reason_to_be_walking_around_with_a_mask.html?jwsource=cl

That's nice, but what do you think the relevance is? Simply stating a piece of info doesn't actually explain your position or the point you're trying to make here.

What is your point about flu numbers for this year being abnormally low?

In March most of the world believed that COVID spread from touching surfaces and then your face. Shogun, why do you think pointing out what Fauci said in March is relevant to late October? The effectiveness of mask-wearing is now well documented.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Here, let me help with that... From the CDC:

influenza activity decreased 98%, from a median of 19.34% to 0.33% of submitted respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza. Interseasonal circulation of influenza in the United States (May 17–August 8, 2020; weeks 21–32) is now at historical lows (weekly median 0.20% of samples testing positive in 2020 versus 2.35% in 2019, 1.04% in 2018 and 2.36% in 2017).

And here's Fauci on masks, March 2020:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/12/flashback_march_2020_fauci_says_theres_no_reason_to_be_walking_around_with_a_mask.html?jwsource=cl

That's nice, but what do you think the relevance is? Simply stating a piece of info doesn't actually explain your position or the point you're trying to make here.

What is your point about flu numbers for this year being abnormally low?

Its bordering rhetorical but where did the flu cases go? Down 98%?

Posted by: chupacabra

In March most of the world believed that COVID spread from touching surfaces and then your face. Shogun, why do you think pointing out what Fauci said in March is relevant to late October? The effectiveness of mask-wearing is now well documented.

He basically said masks will make people feel better during the pandemic

So 2 questions: in your opinion, Fauci is still fighting the good fight against the Trump administration? 

And, if Chinese citizens wore masks during the initial out break last year as they do in general around flu season, how did it spread there? If masks work that is, why or how did it spread and why are cases going up here and there now ? 

Right, the second wave..

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Here, let me help with that... From the CDC:

influenza activity decreased 98%, from a median of 19.34% to 0.33% of submitted respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza. Interseasonal circulation of influenza in the United States (May 17–August 8, 2020; weeks 21–32) is now at historical lows (weekly median 0.20% of samples testing positive in 2020 versus 2.35% in 2019, 1.04% in 2018 and 2.36% in 2017).

And here's Fauci on masks, March 2020:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/12/flashback_march_2020_fauci_says_theres_no_reason_to_be_walking_around_with_a_mask.html?jwsource=cl

That's nice, but what do you think the relevance is? Simply stating a piece of info doesn't actually explain your position or the point you're trying to make here.

What is your point about flu numbers for this year being abnormally low?

Its bordering rhetorical but where did the flu cases go? Down 98%?

If you are capable of finding that article, you are also capable of reading the discussion with possible explanations for the decline.

Posted by: shoreboy

If you are capable of finding that article, you are also capable of reading the discussion with possible explanations for the decline.

I'm not sure we've seen any evidence to support this theory.

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

Posted by: shoreboy

If you are capable of finding that article, you are also capable of reading the discussion with possible explanations for the decline.

I'm not sure we've seen any evidence to support this theory.

The theories discussed in the CDC article? They arent definitive explanations, but they do show the factors that could somewhat explain the drop in flu numbers.