Coronavirus: What questions do you have?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
2,281
Are there estimates out there for what percentage of the breakthrough infections were for each vaccine? Like X% Pfizer, Y% Moderna, and Z% J&J?

Also, I’m seeing really conflicting reports on vaccine effectiveness against Delta.US reports tend to say that the P and M vaccines are “very effective” against Delta, but then there was a study out of Israel that put the effectiveness down in the 30% range. Is this the difference between testing positive/showing symptoms/being hospitalized/dying, or is there another explanation?
 

hball55

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
193
Location
Oroville, CA
That is absolutely not how the FLU has worked. It has absolutely gotten stronger, but we adapted to make better and better vaccines. The same will happen with COVID.
All flu varieties don’t originate from the same source, so you are making a false equivalency, stick to the subject at hand, Covid-19. You know that viruses become weaker with time; afterall, if your victims all die, so does the virus. Virus’ of any specific variety become weaker and easier to transmit with time, except that Covid-19 doesn’t seem to be doing that. Is it because the mutations are being engineered rather than being natural, or is the government lying to us about the lethality of the Delta variant.
 

BABAR

Builds Rockets for NASA
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
9,195
Reaction score
3,877
I think these covid variants are not natural, but engineered. Viruses are supposed to get weaker in time, but these variants aren’t following that path, unless we are being lied to just so we can continue to be controlled.
I might agree with you, except the virus life cycle is unbelievable rapid compared with plants and animals.

from


virus replication rates can run from 8-12 HOURS (while chickenpox/shingles can stay dormant for decades), and a virus infected cell produces up to 100,000 progeny. I couldn’t find specifics for COVID, so these are general virus numbers. Most progeny are identical , and I don’t know the mutation rate but say 1 in 1000. And most mutations are either lethal (to the virus, good for us) but say 1 in a million is advantageous to the virus (replicates faster, more infectious, better at evading acquired or VACCINATED immunity.)

so 0nly 1 in a BILLION virus cell infections results in a nastier bug, which seems rare until you go back to to how fast this puppy replicates, that each infected person likely has thousands of infected cells, each cell carrying up to 100k virus particles, a playing field of earth,s population of 7.6 billion plus (most of whom are not and still well not be vaccinated in the near future—-in the US it is because people choose not to be vaccinated, but worldwide it just takes a long time to get to everyone) an unnumbered population of bats, minks, and even a snow leopard here and there (a natural and “unvaccinatable” reservoir, and you can see how fast this scourge can adapt.
 

BABAR

Builds Rockets for NASA
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
9,195
Reaction score
3,877
All flu varieties don’t originate from the same source, so you are making a false equivalency, stick to the subject at hand, Covid-19. You know that viruses become weaker with time; afterall, if your victims all die, so does the virus. Virus’ of any specific variety become weaker and easier to transmit with time, except that Covid-19 doesn’t seem to be doing that. Is it because the mutations are being engineered rather than being natural, or is the government lying to us about the lethality of the Delta variant.
Agree, in general an organism that kills its host quickly will be less successful than one that doesn’t. However, an organism that replicates faster and therefore results in faster transmission to NEW hosts WILL outcompete slowe mr replicating but more “mildly” infected hosts. Hypothetical numbers, but if delta has a replication rate 4x that of Alpha, it’s gonna dominate even if it is 4x more lethal, especially because the lethality rate in average population is still low for both viruses, say 8% for delta and 2% for alpha. Again emphasize I am imagining numbers out of thin air purely for illustrative purposes, I don’t know the ACTUAL numbers for either wild type COVID or the developing variants.

point is, while we do NOT know if the original virus was a zoonoses (something endemic in bats or pangolins or unicorns) or something WAS engineered in a lab (topic for another thread), the ensuing variants are unlikely to be engineered and in fact are exactly what one would expect.

EVENTUALLY (once this hits all 7.6 billion of us) you will probably be right, the less lethal strains will win out, as killing ALL your hosts is not a good long term evolutionary strategy. In the meantime vaccines and boosters (if we can get ahead of the successful vaccine evading mutation rate) are our best hope.

as frustrated as many of us are by the anti vaccers, so far it seems the variants are popping up in places where the vaccination rates are far lower than the developed countries, I think
 

BABAR

Builds Rockets for NASA
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
9,195
Reaction score
3,877
@cwbullet , I understand that the delta and possible lambda variants are more resistant to natural immunity from initial wild type virus (is that what is currently called the Aloha strain?) Meaning if you got original virus, you are still susceptible to get the new guys on the block. But are the delta and lambda strains resistant to EACH other, I .e., if you get Delta does your acquired immunity protect you from Lambda?

if not, this may be more convincing evidence for the anti-vaccers who are on the fence. Most I suspect believe COVID is “one-and-done”, but if indeed each new variant in going to have a decent likelihood of RE-infecting previously diseased and recovered individuals, vaccines and boosters might seem more attractive even to the more, let’s just kindly say independent self sufficient minded people who are currently deferring vaccination.
 

hball55

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
193
Location
Oroville, CA
We are seeing far too many infections amongst vaccinated people. Either they are lying about being vaccinated (entirely possible) or the vaccine is not nearly as effective as it’s supposed to be. The Texas delegation positives are way out of whack if they are all truly vaccinated. That said, this whole thing has been so politicized that I don’t believe the stories about the surge being amongst the unvaccinated.

That term, anti-vaccers, is offensive to me. Many of those people have had many other vaccines. Afterall, these vaccines are experimental vaccines, for emergency use; if they were fully tested and approved, that would be another thing altogether.
 

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,055
You know that viruses become weaker with time;
Actually, I don't. I'm not a virologist.
If you are, or if you've studied this subject matter in depth, please share the references to relevant peer-reviewed publications that backup your assertions.

Virus’ of any specific variety become weaker and easier to transmit with time, except that Covid-19 doesn’t seem to be doing that.
Really?
My casual reading of Covid news suggests just the opposite.
I'm open to being wrong. Please share legitimate research that backs up your assertions.

Is it because the mutations are being engineered rather than being natural, or is the government lying to us about the lethality of the Delta variant.
Or is it neither, and you are just propagating conspiracy theories?
Easy way to tell - substantiate your assertions with peer-reviewed scientific research, or FB chat room links. We will draw the conclusions accordingly.

We are seeing far too many infections amongst vaccinated people. Either they are lying about being vaccinated (entirely possible) or the vaccine is not nearly as effective as it’s supposed to be.
False conclusion drawn from false assertion.
The overwhelming majority of current infections and hospitalizations are coming from UN-vaccinated people:
"Nationwide, the Delta variant is responsible for 83 percent of new COVID-19 cases and 97 percent of people hospitalized with COVID-19 are unvaccinated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."​

"data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 1.1%.​
And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average."​


That said, this whole thing has been so politicized that I don’t believe the stories about the surge being amongst the unvaccinated.
That term, anti-vaccers, is offensive to me.
Sorry, but you seam to be the one politicizing the hack out of Covid-19 vaccines, and also getting offended for being caught in the act. Deal with it.

In the US, Covid-19 is now a ghetto-pandemic: effecting the paranoid, the ill-informed, and the anti-vaxers.
Natural selection in action, as cruel as that is.
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
5,209
Location
Hawaii
We are seeing far too many infections amongst vaccinated people. Either they are lying about being vaccinated (entirely possible) or the vaccine is not nearly as effective as it’s supposed to be. The Texas delegation positives are way out of whack if they are all truly vaccinated. That said, this whole thing has been so politicized that I don’t believe the stories about the surge being amongst the unvaccinated.

That term, anti-vaccers, is offensive to me. Many of those people have had many other vaccines. Afterall, these vaccines are experimental vaccines, for emergency use; if they were fully tested and approved, that would be another thing altogether.
The mass media focuses on the breakthrough infections. To get proper perspective you need to look at the relative numbers.

From the ABC News article linked below:
“Out of 157 million fully vaccinated in the US, there were 4,909 hospitalizations and 988 deaths,” Dr. Carlos del Rio, infectious disease physician and professor of Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine, said during a press briefing on Monday.

So a serious outcome even though fully vaccinated in 5897 cases (4909 + 988).
Doing the math (5897/157 million) shows a rate of .0037%.
There are probably many more breakthrough infections in the vaccinated that are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, like the Yankee players or the Texas delegation members (or the 2 US Olympians who tested positive and couldn't compete).
So if the vaccines were, say, 98% effective we still would see over 3 million breakthrough infections.
Most of these would be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.
Anyhoo, here's a couple of links you may or may not be interested in reading:
Why breakthrough COVID-19 infections don't mean the vaccine isn't working - ABC News (go.com)
Symptomatic breakthrough COVID-19 infections rare, CDC data estimates (yahoo.com)

As for the term "anti-vaxxers", would you prefer anti-covidvaxxers?
I try to discuss, not offend.
Peace.
 
Last edited:

rocketsaway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
535
Reaction score
32
Location
Philly Burbs
I posted an article earlier about vaccinations on children. I would like your comments, what say you ?

Can go only by my observations of busing 45+ kids, K-6, this past school yr.
I counted about 4 kids who were missing, as they were "sick". That was only for about 3 days per kid.
During the Aug-June school yr, they closed the public HS down for a week, about 2 times, in the fall.
That was due to about "10-14 kids" positive.
My private HS kids never closed. Out of 10 on the bus, I did see 1 kid as "sick' and gone for a week.
Nothing happened during spring-summer, both private and public and sports was full on.

I dont see a need to vaccinate children, for their benefit.
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
27,810
Reaction score
5,298
Location
Glennville, GA
All flu varieties don’t originate from the same source, so you are making a false equivalency, stick to the subject at hand, Covid-19. You know that viruses become weaker with time; afterall, if your victims all die, so does the virus. Virus’ of any specific variety become weaker and easier to transmit with time, except that Covid-19 doesn’t seem to be doing that. Is it because the mutations are being engineered rather than being natural, or is the government lying to us about the lethality of the Delta variant.
This is partially an incorrect statement. Viruses do not always get weaker. Sometimes we get stronger against the virus. It is an advantage to not kill the host, but COVID rarely kills the host so it is sort of a moot point. It kills less than 1%. The problem is the cost to society. That 1% is quickly draining capital.

There is no legitimate proof that COVID is engineered at this stage. It is worth a look but anything down this lane is conjecture at this stage. COVID slowly produces viable mutants. in a year, we have probably had 1 million mutant variants but 99.99% were non-viable.

As far as sources, that statement is true with all viruses including Coronaviruses.
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
27,810
Reaction score
5,298
Location
Glennville, GA
I posted an article earlier about vaccinations on children. I would like your comments, what say you ?

Can go only by my observations of busing 45+ kids, K-6, this past school yr.
I counted about 4 kids who were missing, as they were "sick". That was only for about 3 days per kid.
During the Aug-June school yr, they closed the public HS down for a week, about 2 times, in the fall.
That was due to about "10-14 kids" positive.
My private HS kids never closed. Out of 10 on the bus, I did see 1 kid as "sick' and gone for a week.
Nothing happened during spring-summer, both private and public and sports was full on.

I dont see a need to vaccinate children, for their benefit.
More research is needed on kids. It is not that they do not catch it or that they cannot pass it, it is that they may not get benefit and may be harmed by the vaccine. We must disprove the last two to give it to children.
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,098
Location
Alliance, Ohio
This week, the CDC withdrew it's request to the FDA for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for Covid-19 PCR testing. At the same time, it seems to indicate that better tests are now available. Altogether, as a layperson,I find it a little unclear, and I'm already seeing memes online that, I'm betting, are grossly misinterpreting the underlying meaning to it.

In part, the announcement read,

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives."

Can you translate and interpret what that means to an average guy like me?

Certainly it doesn't mean that the PCR test is useless or inaccurate as the conspiracy theorists would suggest. But what exactly DOES it mean?
 

ksaves2

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
6,261
Reaction score
489
Location
Central Illinois
This is partially an incorrect statement. Viruses do not always get weaker. Sometimes we get stronger against the virus. It is an advantage to not kill the host, but COVID rarely kills the host so it is sort of a moot point. It kills less than 1%. The problem is the cost to society. That 1% is quickly draining capital.

There is no legitimate proof that COVID is engineered at this stage. It is worth a look but anything down this lane is conjecture at this stage. COVID slowly produces viable mutants. in a year, we have probably had 1 million mutant variants but 99.99% were non-viable.

As far as sources, that statement is true with all viruses including Coronaviruses.
Chuck hit the nail smack dab on the head. Sometimes viruses get weaker, sometimes they get more virulent. Influenza is in the same boat. With continued mutations they can become more virulent or the mutations can lead to errors in virus assembly before host cell ruptures and the virions essentially hit a dead end. Like Chuck mentions, it can go either way.
Kurt Savegnago
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
2,281
Chuck hit the nail smack dab on the head. Sometimes viruses get weaker, sometimes they get more virulent. Influenza is in the same boat. With continued mutations they can become more virulent or the mutations can lead to errors in virus assembly before host cell ruptures and the virions essentially hit a dead end. Like Chuck mentions, it can go either way.
Kurt Savegnago
As I understand it, the fact that you can spread COVID before symptoms show makes it easier for a more-deadly virus strain to be viable. If most of the transmission happens before symptoms show, it doesn't matter as much if the patient is more likely to die (or die quickly). Compare and contrast that to Ebola, which is transmissible only after symptoms show. If the patient dies quickly, there's less chance for the virus to spread.
 

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,055
Can go only by my observations of busing 45+ kids, K-6, this past school yr.
I counted about 4 kids who were missing, as they were "sick". That was only for about 3 days per kid.
During the Aug-June school yr, they closed the public HS down for a week, about 2 times, in the fall.
That was due to about "10-14 kids" positive.
My private HS kids never closed. Out of 10 on the bus, I did see 1 kid as "sick' and gone for a week.
Another data point - my school district has kept meticulous records of Covid-19 infections among kids (elementary, MS, HS) and staff. They used to send them out weekly, but now the web site only lists monthly data. School district was open in hybrid mode full school year, with an option to opt out into remote-only (group C, aka Zoom classes) mode, at parents discretion. Masks required indoors, desks spaced apart, dividers between desks, no in-school lunch (day ended early at ~1pm).

1627405595883.png
1627405654155.png


Source: https://sites.google.com/summit.k12.nj.us/covid19dashboard/home

(Other nearby towns still have weekly data on their web sites, if anyone needs it)

I dont see a need to vaccinate children, for their benefit.
I do. It's very simple, really.

Do you, and your family, get flu shots every year?
I do, and not because I am afraid to die of flu, or have some bizarre political agenda. I just hate getting sick, and the chances of kids dragging in bacteria and viruses from school is ~99.9%. I also don't enjoy watching my kids being sick, either. Thus, annual flu shots are a minor inconvenience relative to the downtime and misery of actually catching flu, getting sick, and passing it around the family circle. Usually more than once.

Flue shots have far FAR FAR lower efficacy rate (19-60%, varies annually) than mRNA Covid-19 vaccines (94-95%).
Thus, it's a no-brainer to get Covid-19 shots to avoid the down time and misery of getting sick. Regardless of your chances of a lethal outcome.

YMMV,
a
 
Last edited:

ksaves2

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
6,261
Reaction score
489
Location
Central Illinois
As I understand it, the fact that you can spread COVID before symptoms show makes it easier for a more-deadly virus strain to be viable. If most of the transmission happens before symptoms show, it doesn't matter as much if the patient is more likely to die (or die quickly). Compare and contrast that to Ebola, which is transmissible only after symptoms show. If the patient dies quickly, there's less chance for the virus to spread.
Very true but infection with any virus is dependent upon virulence (how much affinity it has for a given hosts cells) and viral load.
Say one inhales a very few Covid-19 virions (virus). If ones innate non-immunized immune system can process this, then there might be a chance the disease process is beatable before whopping doses of new Covid-19 virus particles are released and infect other cells in the same host and get into the environment. The Covid-19 would have to reproduce to a critical level inside the host in order to cause the symptomatic disease syndrome. It might be when a person is not showing signs of disease, some Covid-19 virons (viruses) might be shed to the environment before the person is visibly sick and hence is a source of asymptomatic spread.
If the person gets a whopping load of Covid-19 viri (viruses) and they reproduce rapidly in the unvaccinated host, then it follows the asymptomatic period would be short as a whopping load of virions would be released at once inside the host and into the external environment and perpetuate self inoculation. It follows if there is a large virus load in the host, the outcome might be more uncertain. (Along with the overall health of the host like diabetes, COPD, heart disease and especially obesity. Those are big strikes against survival.)
This is why it's important to get the Covid-19 vaccine. I can see where there are some cases in the fully vaccinated as one cannot predict how much protection (immune response) any one individual is going to have. The figures look good though and those who get symptomatic Covid after being vaccinated they say have better outcomes. My son and I got the vaccine back in April as soon as it was available to us.
Ebola is a very nasty virus and fortunately there are two licensed vaccines for it now. I believe before the vaccines, few patients survived it.
Kurt Savegnago
 

speed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
13
This week, the CDC withdrew it's request to the FDA for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for Covid-19 PCR testing. At the same time, it seems to indicate that better tests are now available. Altogether, as a layperson,I find it a little unclear, and I'm already seeing memes online that, I'm betting, are grossly misinterpreting the underlying meaning to it.

In part, the announcement read,

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives."

Can you translate and interpret what that means to an average guy like me?

Certainly it doesn't mean that the PCR test is useless or inaccurate as the conspiracy theorists would suggest. But what exactly DOES it mean?
What happened was this PRC test detected the influenza virus too. That's bad, very very bad. That, is why the number of flu cases dropped like a rock....they were being counted as Covid!
That is why the cdc backtracked on these tests and now say they are not an effective test for the covid virus, and these PRC tests need to stop being given.
Yet another flip flop from our government....
I seem to be under the impression that over 300,000,000 have never had covid or been tested positive.

07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.
 
Last edited:

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,466
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
What happened was this PRC test detected the influenza virus too. That's bad, very very bad. That, is why the number of flu cases dropped like a rock....they were being counted as Covid!
That is why the cdc backtracked on these tests and now say they are not an effective test for the covid virus, and these PRC tests need to stop being given.
Yet another flip flop from our government....
I seem to be under the impression that over 300,000,000 have never had covid or been tested positive.

07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.
The PCR test for COVID does not detect flu, period. You are passing around a debunked conspiracy theory.

Anyone who knows the least bit of molecular biology is doing a major headlpalm after reading your inane post.

Masking and social distancing kept flu from spreading; flu has a much lower R value than Covid so the measures were extremely effective keeping flu numbers down.
 

speed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
13
The PCR test for COVID does not detect flu, period. You are passing around a debunked conspiracy theory.

Anyone who knows the least bit of molecular biology is doing a major headlpalm after reading your inane post.

Masking and social distancing kept flu from spreading; flu has a much lower R value than Covid so the measures were extremely effective keeping flu numbers down.
So, the cdc information is...incorrect? Im not a molecular biologist are you? Please post a clarification from the cdc, otherwise your just passing on bogus information.

"can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses".


FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, and its use could present a health risk. Additionally, FDA has not authorized, cleared, or approved the test for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law. The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recallexternal icon, the most serious type of recall.
 
Last edited:

CalebJ

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
600
So, the cdc information is...incorrect? Im not a molecular biologist are you? Plese post a clarification from the cdc, otherwise your just a troll.
No one has any idea what you're talking about.

The CDC article makes no reference -whatsoever- to the PCR test giving a false positive for influenza. Nor does any other reputable source.

You've made a wild claim with no evidence whatsoever, then called out others as trolls. Good luck with that.
 

speed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
13
No one has any idea what you're talking about.

The CDC article makes no reference -whatsoever- to the PCR test giving a false positive for influenza. Nor does any other reputable source.

You've made a wild claim with no evidence whatsoever, then called out others as trolls. Good luck with that.
Go to the cdc site and verify for yourself.
I posted information directly from the cdc. Post up your proof. Have the day you deserve.
 

timbucktoo

Well-Known Member
Staff member
TRF Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
8,685
Reaction score
1,527
Location
Cocoa Beach
Go to the cdc site and verify for yourself.
I posted information directly from the cdc. Post up your proof. Have the day you deserve.
What you posted/linked is the antigen test. Makes no mention of PCR test.
 

CalebJ

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
600
And no reference to any antigen test indicating a positive for Covid 19 based on influenza.
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
5,209
Location
Hawaii
What happened was this PRC test detected the influenza virus too.
No, you conveniently neglected to include the rest of the CDC statement in your excerpt.

"In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing."

In other words they are encouraging labs to use multiplexed tests that can detect both flu and Covid and save time and money, not saying that the tests mistake one for the other.
That is why the cdc backtracked on these tests and now say they are not an effective test for the covid virus, and these PRC tests need to stop being given.
This is a recommendation on one test. There are many others. The recommendation is because the others came out later and are multiplexed allowing for testing of both viruses.
And by the way, it's PCR, not PRC.
 

speed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
13
What you posted/linked is the antigen test. Makes no mention of PCR test.
What you posted/linked is the antigen test. Makes no mention of PCR test.
RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.
 

speed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
13
No, you conveniently neglected to include the rest of the CDC statement in your excerpt.

"In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing."

In other words they are encouraging labs to use multiplexed tests that can detect both flu and Covid and save time and money, not saying that the tests mistake one for the other.


This is a recommendation on one test. There are many others. The recommendation is because the others came out later and are multiplexed allowing for testing of both viruses.
And by the way, it's PCR, not PRC.
Oh, i'm so very sorry that i switched 2 letters when clearly the article says PCR. Why are they switching? Post up proof!
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
5,209
Location
Hawaii
Oh, i'm so very sorry that i switched 2 letters when clearly the article says PCR. Why are they switching? Post up proof!
Read the CDC statement. That's your proof. Also my post above.
Once more, they are recommending that ONE PCR test be replaced by other PCR tests that use multiplexed assays to save time and money. Maybe they are more reliable as well.
RIF.
 

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,466
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
So, the cdc information is...incorrect? Im not a molecular biologist are you? Please post a clarification from the cdc, otherwise your just passing on bogus information.

"can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses".


FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, and its use could present a health risk. Additionally, FDA has not authorized, cleared, or approved the test for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law. The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recallexternal icon, the most serious type of recall.
The CDC information is not incorrect, you just don't know what you are talking about and you posted a link to a stop use order about an antigen test (not a PCR test)

And, since you asked, yes I'm a molecular biologist with a PhD, 13 years experience supporting molecular test development and the last 13 years of my life have been supporting clinical trials (both testing and clinical development).

The link you shared was a directive to stop using a specific rapid test from a company called Innova. This is an ANTIGEN test, meaning it looks for specific bits of virus protein. Apparently the FDA doesn't think the data from the manufacturer supports the use claimed by Innova. This has nothing whatsoever to do with PCR testing.

The link you probably should have posted is this one:


While good fodder for conspiracy theories, the fact is there's no need for testing under EUA given the number of fully approved tests on the market. This is all explained in the CDC link I posted above. There are a number of molecular diagnostic tests (PCR and related) and serology based ones (testing blood). Go to the site. Learn. Turn off the conspiracy theory channels.

Here's a fact-check of the whole issue. The loonies are coming out of the woodwork with this.

 
Top