Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer
Thanks for the link Baygo. I'm still trying to interpret what was written by the WHO. The relevant paragraph is:
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.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
The WHO article is poorly written, but I don't come to the same conclusion that there is no asymptomatic condition. Nowhere does it say what viral load is required before symptoms show or for a person to be infectious. It also doesn't report how many labs weren't following the protocols so we don't know how many positive test results were false.
It was written for the labs that do the testing, clarifying information on why not following the testing protocols might lead to reporting false positives. That topic was covered in a NPR article.
It is likely that some people quarantined due to a positive test when they didn't have to just as it is likely some people had the virus, were never tested and so should have been quarantined.
I'm still trying to understand why the Lakes Region infection rate was so low during the summer, when tourists flocked in, and so much higher since the fall. The state daily infection rate, while rising again, has fallen to where it was in November and the deaths/day have fallen over 90% over the peak.
With vaccinations rolling out, those that were careful can start to mingle with those that were never careful and open things up again. |
You are correct. That is the paragraph of interest. My interpretation of “Clinical presentation” Is if one was to go into a clinic in search of a diagnosis, the clinic would base diagnosis from symptoms, then do a test. WHO is stating that if that diagnosis conflicts with test results, test again. The article that pointed me to the WHO statement was the basis to my statement 90% false positives. Big Brother has remove that article from the source I found it on.
There are some other very interesting concerns in regards to the vaccine. My bartender ears overheard the conversation where someone had concerns about a microchip being implanted with the vaccine. The second person in that conversation claimed to be in microchip development and stated that there’s no chip that small. I did a google search today for the smallest micro chip. According to my findings the smallest one was developed in 2010. You would have to create a line with 2.5 million of them to stretch one inch. Another overheard conversation indicated that this is the first vaccine to use CRISPR technology. I believe my time spent researching CRISPR was time well spent.
We all can and will have our own opinion of this. A damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario has certainly been painted.