Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:

Isnt one of the theories that a bat at a wet market took a dump on a pangolin and then somebody bought the pangolin? 

Is that natural? Or man made? 

To me that would be a natural transmission. If the virus was isolated, enhanced, then reintroduced to said bat who then took a dump on a pangolin because the bat escaped from the lab, I would consider that man-made :tinfoilhat:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Isnt one of the theories that a bat at a wet market took a dump on a pangolin and then somebody bought the pangolin? 

Is that natural? Or man made? 

 

 

Agree with beer. That scenario seems au naturale to me. :X :tinfoilhat: 

Edited by Nathan R. Jessep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing to keep in mind is that even though cases are falling or at least leveled off in most areas, and even if you count 3-4x undocumented cases, there are still far more people who are still susceptible to catching COVID. For example, our numbers have been terrible in LA, but seemed to have leveled off in the last week. And while I am hopeful that was the worst for us, presently only ~SEVEN % of our state population have been confirmed with a positive test. Even if you 4x that number, that's still well over 2MM people that are vulnerable, in our state alone. We have vaccinated, as of yesterday, ~230K with at least a first dose. So even removing those  vaccinated from the vulnerable population, we are far from out of the woods yet.  

Stay safe, everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

If Covid-19 Did Start With a Lab Leak, Would We Ever Know?

 

My only question is... WTH happened to the study they did (journal Nature, IIRC) back in February/March that stated that it was absolutely natural in genetic makeup, which they knew from looking at the structuring of the virus cells?? (i.e. had they been man-made, they would've closely resembled a known coronavirus, with  few modifications... and they did not)  Was that false? Did they reanalyze and get different findings? Or are we just now bending to conspiracy theory pressure? 

Just because the virus probably leaked from a lab doesn't mean it isn't "natural."  The lab in question did research on bat coronaviruses.  They almost certainly have samples of naturally-occurring viruses that are worse than covid-19.

Edit: Covid-19 sucks, but it isn't that bad.  The layman's argument for it not being genetically engineered/altered is that it isn't that communicable and not very deadly at all.    

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copied from a FB friend who shared her COVID experience. TBH, this is one of the biggest fears I had about catching COVID, since these type reports started circulating. I like my food and whiskey dammit! :X 

Quote

I want to share our after covid experience just incase someone else is going through it too. M & I both have parosmia which means the nerves in our nose are trying to make new connections to return to normal. What it means in my terms is food nightmare. There are so many things we can no longer eat because it taste like rancid meat mixed with stomach acid and nickels. Sadly the foods we miss most are chocolate & cooked meats. Even foods that we can tolerate taste like cigarette smoke. Basic things like brushing you teeth taste like gasoline. It’s trial and error over here so don’t be surprised if you see one of us spit out food like a spoiled brat. Smells are also bad. No cooking foods at our house right now without someone getting sick. If it’s something that normally smells good like shampoo or laundry detergent it now smells like a mix between cigarettes and that those cheap things that stick inside toilet bowls of gas station restrooms. The smells are super strong at two of my favorite places ("local cupcake shop" & Target) so trying to avoid them at all cost as well as restaurants where you can smell the food. There are 10k people who have the exact same issues in a FB group I joined so at least I know we aren’t going crazy. It usually develops 2-3 months after you have recovered from covid and not sure how long it will last. A lot of people are 6-8 months in already. This is a long post but when this first started happening to us weeks ago I thought M was being dramatic and then mine started and I realized it was legit. From what I am reading it is disproportionately happening in younger people so if your child all the sudden starts gagging trying to eat his peanut butter sandwich or can’t drink a coke call me I do not want this to sound like a compliant because we are fine and healthy and I know so many people aren’t but I do want to pass on this info for anyone else going through it. You are not losing your mind

 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Copied from a FB friend who shared her COVID experience. TBH, this is one of the biggest fears I had about catching COVID, since these type reports started circulating. I like my food and whiskey dammit! :X 

 

The cigarette smoke thing is interesting because I had a couple of days when I had covid where I had a cigarette smoke taste in my mouth, not while eating though. It was while I had lost my sense of taste and smell. Mine seems most of the way back but my wife's is taking longer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
4 hours ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Agree with beer. That scenario seems au naturale to me. :X :tinfoilhat: 

I would agree. Now imagine it happened in a lab...Or something similar. Or crossed blood samples? Or somebody handling the animals? 

I thought it was established early in this thread that someone at the lab was selling animals to the market that were marked for disposal. 

 

 

Not every dollar is a good dollar, or yen.

Edited by Dezbelief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... 

How do we address the Crazy people who are immediately claiming the WHO move to reduce false positives in PCR on Inauguration Day as "tHe FeAr WaS mAnUfAcTuReD ALL ALONG!"? 

Optics/Timing are admittedly bad, it's absurd to think the WHO, a global organization, would be making decisions like that for Americentric political reasons. 

Edited by [icon]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, [icon] said:

Okay... 

How do we address the Crazy people who are immediately claiming the WHO move to reduce false positives in PCR on Inauguration Day as "tHe FeAr WaS mAnUfAcTuReD ALL ALONG!"? 

Optics/Timing are admittedly bad, it's absurd to think the WHO, a global organization, would be making decisions like that for Americentric political reasons. 

I tend to ignore crazy people. When it's someone in my personal life I let them know one time how I view their crazy talk. When they start talking crazy next time I either steer the conversation elsewhere, ignore them or leave the room. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 6:22 PM, prosopis said:

I received my second pfizer shot yesterday at 2;30 pm. Definitely more arm pain than the first shot. I woke up this morning with VERY sore joints. I do have arthritis but this was another level. I decided for various reasons I could work today. I took tylenol at 7:30 am and was feeling pretty good for a while. Things took a turn around 4;00 pm. 

I now have a pounding headache, sore joints, uncontrollable shivering unless I am bundled up in sweats and a blanket. I do not have a fever. I'm really feeling bad right now. If I felt like this earlier this morning I would not have gone into work. I am very achey all over. 

Hoping this is just par for the course but I am a little worried here.

Edit to add that my tinnitus which I have had for years is also much worse?

Much better this morning.

I did not realize how much my hands had swollen yesterday. Now that my hand swelling has gone down it is quite startling. As I have mentioned I do have fairly bad arthritis in my hands and they have swollen in the past from this. My impression is that the vaccine did something to really aggravate the arthritis. Pretty rough two days but I'm glad I am vaccinated. Next week I will go for .50 wing night at the local pub which I have not done in 10 months. I am pretty stoked for that.

* I will still follow all rules but now I feel safer doing that as opposed to prior where I would not do that.

  • Like 8
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4131 deaths yesterday should be the ATH.  Not sure who had us topping out at that figure, I was all along thinking the ATH would come in the 9/11 range +/-.  

There's simply not enough people in hospital now to support this going much higher, it might get adjusted up later though with the backlogs that a lot of morgues face.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, prosopis said:

Much better this morning.

I did not realize how much my hands had swollen yesterday. Now that my hand swelling has gone down it is quite startling. As I have mentioned I do have fairly bad arthritis in my hands and they have swollen in the past from this. My impression is that the vaccine did something to really aggravate the arthritis. Pretty rough two days but I'm glad I am vaccinated. Next week I will go for .50 wing night at the local pub which I have not done in 10 months. I am pretty stoked for that.

* I will still follow all rules but now I feel safer doing that as opposed to prior where I would not do that.

Glad to hear you're back on your feet GB :thumbup:

Not glad to hear about the arthritis issue since I have psoriatic arthritis. You can PM me if you don't want to get into specifics here but what do you take for it? I'm on Enbrel (an injectable) once a week. Wonder how that will interact with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, [icon] said:

Okay... 

How do we address the Crazy people who are immediately claiming the WHO move to reduce false positives in PCR on Inauguration Day as "tHe FeAr WaS mAnUfAcTuReD ALL ALONG!"? 

Optics/Timing are admittedly bad, it's absurd to think the WHO, a global organization, would be making decisions like that for Americentric political reasons. 

I've pretty much quit discussing with those kind of people, it's pointless and tiring. My new strategy is to just drop links to factual articles, studies, etc. in there. Not that I think they'll read it or care, but maybe someone else who's on the fence might. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, [icon] said:

Okay... 

How do we address the Crazy people who are immediately claiming the WHO move to reduce false positives in PCR on Inauguration Day as "tHe FeAr WaS mAnUfAcTuReD ALL ALONG!"? 

Optics/Timing are admittedly bad, it's absurd to think the WHO, a global organization, would be making decisions like that for Americentric political reasons. 

Huh?

Whatever this means, ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife is getting her 1st shot today. I asked her to make sure they tell her what brand she is getting and to do all she can to nail down a follow up appointment. 

I have seen horror stories on the news about the vast number of people who are overdue for their second dose and I don't want that to happen to her. 

I also worry (and maybe this is unfounded) about people getting Pfizer for their first shot and then, because of availability, getting a different brand the 2nd time. I assume there is some quality control going on there. 

I always thought I would be the first in the family to get the vaccine, but being in education, she beat me to the punch. I am still on a wait list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Courtjester said:

My wife is getting her 1st shot today. I asked her to make sure they tell her what brand she is getting and to do all she can to nail down a follow up appointment. 

I have seen horror stories on the news about the vast number of people who are overdue for their second dose and I don't want that to happen to her. 

I also worry (and maybe this is unfounded) about people getting Pfizer for their first shot and then, because of availability, getting a different brand the 2nd time. I assume there is some quality control going on there. 

I always thought I would be the first in the family to get the vaccine, but being in education, she beat me to the punch. I am still on a wait list. 

From arranging things now for 5 family members, they are very deliberate in saying if you get Vax A you should get Vax A for round two only.  

The only exception to this is the Russian one.  That one is actually thought to be compatible with others, though I'm thin on the details there and we aren't giving that out in the US anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

I've pretty much quit discussing with those kind of people, it's pointless and tiring. My new strategy is to just drop links to factual articles, studies, etc. in there. Not that I think they'll read it or care, but maybe someone else who's on the fence might. 

This. Anyone that whips out the crazy in public or on social media ... that person can't really be reached or convinced of anything, at least not in that immediate moment. But there are usually people on the sidelines that stay silent but listen in or read items online. Those sideline folks don't usually feel as strongly as those that spout off, and thus often can receive information with a more open mind.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was able to get the vaccine due to there being 11 extra doses at his pharmacy.

Does anybody fear that there may be an issue getting your second dose given the disastrous rollout, there being no real auxiliary supply, and apparently no real federal distribution plan up until now?  I am thinking of not getting it ASAP because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

early study findings (have not been peer-reviewed yet), but Pfizer vaccine appears to be effective against UK variant as expected

Yea, it is the South African one that could necessitate an update possibly.  They are saying we can negate that if we get everyone vaccinated faster, but that this variant could be the dominant one by fall.  Not sure if the current vaccines would offer some partial protection or prevent some spread or what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will try to find and post what I read about getting second dose. It was from an epidemiologist. But she basically said get the first dose if and when you can. Even if shortages, etc. prevent the second dose on time. There's not a 2-day/1-week/etc. window that renders the first dose useless if you miss the second-dose window. That's just the recommended window. You still have a degree of protection, and will still have ramped up protection when you get the second dose. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Will try to find and post what I read about getting second dose. It was from an epidemiologist. But she basically said get the first dose if and when you can. Even if shortages, etc. prevent the second dose on time. There's not a 2-day/1-week/etc. window that renders the first dose useless if you miss the second-dose window. That's just the recommended window. You still have a degree of protection, and will still have ramped up protection when you get the second dose. 

Yes and No.  The 95% effectiveness touted for these vaccines are tied to specific time frames as that is what was studied in the trials -- so we don't technically know how much less effective the vaccine may be should you wait 8 weeks instead of 3-4 for the second dose.  

Edited by Leeroy Jenkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest in conspiracy theories regarding the WHO.

I am curious, however, if anyone knows if 40 cycle amplification which has been used all along for Covid (and is now being advised against by the WHO) was common prior to 2020? Does anyone know?

And if it is a common threshold, why drop it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Yes and No.  The 95% effectiveness touted for these vaccines are tied to specific time frames as that is what was studied in the trials -- so we don't technically know how much less effective the vaccine may be should you wait 8 weeks instead of 3-4 for the second dose.  

Right, and the second dose is what really ramps up long term "memory" of antibody protection. But the first dose providing ~50% protection, in combination with the fact that the vaccine-produced antibodies being MUCH stronger (much more robust immune response) and longer lasting that naturally-produced antibodies (from an infection), make it a pretty convincing case. Plus it is already known that natural antibodies, depending on how strong the body's production was, may begin to wain after as little as 3 months. The vaccine antibodies are much more resilient and should outlast natural ones regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Right, and the second dose is what really ramps up long term "memory" of antibody protection. But the first dose providing ~50% protection, in combination with the fact that the vaccine-produced antibodies being MUCH stronger (much more robust immune response) and longer lasting that naturally-produced antibodies (from an infection), make it a pretty convincing case. Plus it is already known that natural antibodies, depending on how strong the body's production was, may begin to wain after as little as 3 months. The vaccine antibodies are much more resilient and should outlast natural ones regardless. 

The bold isnt a fair representation.

The 50% number represents all the people that caught it within two weeks of getting the vaccine. 

The 95% number already has those people removed from the pool for lack of a better way to put it.

If you remove the first two weeks from the single dose group, the numbers go way up. Moderna had 92% effectiveness after one dose after those were removed. (Admittedly small data) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

I have no interest in conspiracy theories regarding the WHO.

I am curious, however, if anyone knows if 40 cycle amplification which has been used all along for Covid (and is now being advised against by the WHO) was common prior to 2020? Does anyone know?

And if it is a common threshold, why drop it?

I had not heard of the "40 cycle amplification" thing until I saw your post just now. Therefore, what I'm posting below just comes from a few minutes of Googling. We'll really want actual medical folks like @growlers, @Biff84, @ghostguy123@Terminalxylem, @gianmarco, @ProstheticRGK, and @jm192 to weigh in.

...

"40 cycle amplification" is part of the procedure for the polymerase chain reaction test (PCR). PCR tests are used for many kind of viruses, including COVID.

Here, "amplification" just means copying of a small piece of DNA over and over until there is enough to more easily (?) analyze. There appears to also be a way to derive copies of the virus's RNA from this same procedure, but I don't know the science behind that.

Anyway, this article suggests that a range of amplification cycles between 20 and 40 is common. Under 20 doesn't seem to yield enough material to be useful, and over 40 can sometimes be too tenuous (e.g. uninfectious viral particles get overrepresented in a sample, leading to false positives). This 2012 article is above my head, but if you CTRL+F for the word "cycle", you'll find lots of side discussion about what's the "sweet spot" number of cycles for this kind of test or that kind of test. Some commentators complain how a 30-cycle test and a 35-cycle test of the same sample yields different results and are asking for help from other researchers to interpret the results.

Additionally, number of cycles has been an issue for the development of rapid-results PCR tests -- some reading here in this 2011 article.

I haven't seen anything about WHO's take on COVID testing amplification cycles. But on the surface, it seems to this layman that WHO recommending a lower number of cycles from a given standard can make sense. It could be true that 40 cycles is too much and the resulting samples are sullied by the presence of non-infection viral particles. But it's all something on which we'll want expert consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battersbox said:

I have no interest in conspiracy theories regarding the WHO.

I am curious, however, if anyone knows if 40 cycle amplification which has been used all along for Covid (and is now being advised against by the WHO) was common prior to 2020? Does anyone know?

And if it is a common threshold, why drop it?

good christ, May called and wants it's right wing talking points back.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

The bold isnt a fair representation.

The 50% number represents all the people that caught it within two weeks of getting the vaccine. 

The 95% number already has those people removed from the pool for lack of a better way to put it.

If you remove the first two weeks from the single dose group, the numbers go way up. Moderna had 92% effectiveness after one dose after those were removed. (Admittedly small data) 

Bad wording by me probably, but the point remains, 52% (Pfizer) and 80% (Moderna) efficacy after one dose. That was straight out of the large scale studies that helped both to get approved. (Referenced and linked to here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, culdeus said:

good christ, May called and wants it's right wing talking points back.

No, it looks like Battersbox is talking about new WHO guidance released yesterday. While the new guidance doesn't specifically refer to "amplification cycles" at all, it does warn about "weak positives":

Quote

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

In the references at the bottom of the link, there is an unlinked cite of another WHO white paper -- perhaps that white paper gives more technical details that suggest a certain number of amplification cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doug B said:

No, it looks like Battersbox is talking about new WHO guidance released yesterday. While the new guidance doesn't specifically refer to "amplification cycles" at all, it does warn about "weak positives":

In the references at the bottom of the link, there is an unlinked cite of another WHO white paper -- perhaps that white paper gives more technical details that suggest a certain number of amplification cycles.

Doug B...thank you for your input. 

Culdeus: your answer was unhelpful at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I had not heard of the "40 cycle amplification" thing until I saw your post just now. Therefore, what I'm posting below just comes from a few minutes of Googling. We'll really want actual medical folks like @growlers, @Biff84, @ghostguy123@Terminalxylem, @gianmarco, @ProstheticRGK, and @jm192 to weigh in.

...

"40 cycle amplification" is part of the procedure for the polymerase chain reaction test (PCR). PCR tests are used for many kind of viruses, including COVID.

Here, "amplification" just means copying of a small piece of DNA over and over until there is enough to more easily (?) analyze. There appears to also be a way to derive copies of the virus's RNA from this same procedure, but I don't know the science behind that.

Anyway, this article suggests that a range of amplification cycles between 20 and 40 is common. Under 20 doesn't seem to yield enough material to be useful, and over 40 can sometimes be too tenuous (e.g. uninfectious viral particles get overrepresented in a sample, leading to false positives). This 2012 article is above my head, but if you CTRL+F for the word "cycle", you'll find lots of side discussion about what's the "sweet spot" number of cycles for this kind of test or that kind of test. Some commentators complain how a 30-cycle test and a 35-cycle test of the same sample yields different results and are asking for help from other researchers to interpret the results.

Additionally, number of cycles has been an issue for the development of rapid-results PCR tests -- some reading here in this 2011 article.

I haven't seen anything about WHO's take on COVID testing amplification cycles. But on the surface, it seems to this layman that WHO recommending a lower number of cycles from a given standard can make sense. It could be true that 40 cycles is too much and the resulting samples are sullied by the presence of non-infection viral particles. But it's all something on which we'll want expert consensus.

Thank you. This is helpful. From the WHO's release yesterday, I thought it was clear they were recommending the lowering of cycles to determine infection. If that's not what they are recommending, what else could it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doug B said:

No, it looks like Battersbox is talking about new WHO guidance released yesterday. While the new guidance doesn't specifically refer to "amplification cycles" at all, it does warn about "weak positives":

In the references at the bottom of the link, there is an unlinked cite of another WHO white paper -- perhaps that white paper gives more technical details that suggest a certain number of amplification cycles.

This amplified data thing was a huge Q-anon/maga thing in the May timeframe trying to justify reopenings.  It's nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, culdeus said:

This amplified data thing was a huge Q-anon/maga thing in the May timeframe trying to justify reopenings.  It's nonsense.  

Okay, then what does this mean?

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

Okay, then what does this mean?

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

It means read the bloody instructions on the test kit.  Not that the virus is fake, if that's what you are implying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, culdeus said:

It means read the bloody instructions on the test kit.  Not that the virus is fake, if that's what you are implying.

I'm not implying anything. Feels like you are inferring plenty.

That's really what it means? Read the instructions? The line which states 'The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load'...that means 'read the instructions'?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Battersbox said:

I'm not implying anything. Feels like you are inferring plenty.

That's really what it means? Read the instructions? The line which states 'The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load'...that means 'read the instructions'?

 

 

That is basic virology, and not specific to CV and is not an instruction.  Why don't you just post whatever twitter/parler feed is trying to spin this so we can get the basis of the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you two are talking past each other.  My layperson understanding (very open to correction by those more knowledgeable), is that the PCR test detects the virus by finding sections of RNA that match the viral RNA.  Each "cycle" amplifies the material by doubling it.  A positive test indicates that there is RNA present consistent with the virus.  The more cycles you run, the less of a viral load needs to be present to return a positive.  I believe the gold standard to determine if someone is actually infected is to culture the virus as confirmation, as PCR testing could pick up on dead / inactivated virus.  That's not practical for mass testing, so they pick a cycle threshold as protocol and use that to determine positives.  If you set it very low at 20 or 25, pretty much everyone testing positive will be sick and infectious as it is indicative of a high viral load, but you will potentially be missing pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people.  If you set it very high at 40 or 45, you make it very unlikely to get a false negative, but you run the risk of flagging people as positive who have a tiny amount of virus and may not be infectious at all while also increasing the risk of sample contamination causing positives.

I don't know what the "right" Ct is, but the reason this is trending now is because if you test the same population at a lower Ct, you will get less positives, so you can see how it would fit the conspiracy people (ZOMG, they'll make all of the cases go away now!). 

Regardless, I don't think that my first paragraph is controversial, and I would hope that we as a nation would use whatever protocol makes the most sense without regard to political issues.  If any of the medical folks want to correct what I've written, have at it - I'm only going by what I've read over the past 10 months.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

I think you two are talking past each other.  My layperson understanding (very open to correction by those more knowledgeable), is that the PCR test detects the virus by finding sections of RNA that match the viral RNA.  Each "cycle" amplifies the material by doubling it.  A positive test indicates that there is RNA present consistent with the virus.  The more cycles you run, the less of a viral load needs to be present to return a positive.  I believe the gold standard to determine if someone is actually infected is to culture the virus as confirmation, as PCR testing could pick up on dead / inactivated virus.  That's not practical for mass testing, so they pick a cycle threshold as protocol and use that to determine positives.  If you set it very low at 20 or 25, pretty much everyone testing positive will be sick and infectious as it is indicative of a high viral load, but you will potentially be missing pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people.  If you set it very high at 40 or 45, you make it very unlikely to get a false negative, but you run the risk of flagging people as positive who have a tiny amount of virus and may not be infectious at all while also increasing the risk of sample contamination causing positives.

I don't know what the "right" Ct is, but the reason this is trending now is because if you test the same population at a lower Ct, you will get less positives, so you can see how it would fit the conspiracy people (ZOMG, they'll make all of the cases go away now!). 

Regardless, I don't think that my first paragraph is controversial, and I would hope that we as a nation would use whatever protocol makes the most sense without regard to political issues.  If any of the medical folks want to correct what I've written, have at it - I'm only going by what I've read over the past 10 months.

Thank you. Makes sense. Careful you don't get labeled as a right-wing, Qanon nutjob.

My understanding also is that higher cycle thresholds can also detect viral particles from recovered people as well, not just asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

Thank you. Makes sense. Careful you don't get labeled as a right-wing, Qanon nutjob.

My understanding also is that higher cycle thresholds can also detect viral particles from recovered people as well, not just asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic.

 

Yes, I think that is true, as even if you are recovered it doesn't mean your body has physically obliterated the viral particles that were part of the infection.  I believe that most places have a recommendation to not undergo routine PCR screening for a time post-recovery because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, culdeus said:

This amplified data thing was a huge Q-anon/maga thing in the May timeframe trying to justify reopenings.  It's nonsense.  

Yeah, but the WHO guidance is unrelated to that QAnon stuff, I would think.

That said ...

Battersbox -- that 1/20/2021 WHO guidance just refers to "weak positives". Perhaps over-amplification of a sample is, indeed, a common cause of a weak positive ... but again, we'd want our medical FBGs to weigh in.

There are also conceivable causes of weak positives -- errors in swabbing, errors in handling samples, errors in other PCR-test procedures. Just don't have enough knowledge of this stuff to speak authoritatively about what WHO might have meant with yesterday's guidance. The 40-cycle thing could be part of that -- I do think that sounds reasonable to a layman. But there could be more to the picture, too.

I can say that Googling "WHO" and "40 cycle amplification" together doesn't seem to bring up any WHO pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Bad wording by me probably, but the point remains, 52% (Pfizer) and 80% (Moderna) efficacy after one dose. That was straight out of the large scale studies that helped both to get approved. (Referenced and linked to here)

Page 28 is what I was referring to for Moderna.

The pfizer data has a similar subset, just not as familiar with their docs. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Yeah, but the WHO guidance is unrelated to that QAnon stuff, I would think.

That said ...

Battersbox -- that 1/20/2021 WHO guidance just refers to "weak positives". Perhaps over-amplification of a sample is, indeed, a common cause of a weak positive ... but again, we'd want our medical FBGs to weigh in.

There are also conceivable causes of weak positives -- errors in swabbing, errors in handling samples, errors in other PCR-test procedures. Just don't have enough knowledge of this stuff to speak authoritatively about what WHO might have meant with yesterday's guidance. The 40-cycle thing could be part of that -- I do think that sounds reasonable to a layman. But there could be more to the picture, too.

I can say that Googling "WHO" and "40 cycle amplification" together doesn't seem to bring up any WHO pages.

Thank you. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...