Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
This is a strange article for The NY Times, the last few months they have been pumping the hysteric doomsday narrative now switched to a casedemic doomsday narrative, when things don’t pan out they just change the story.
This story sets off alarm bells for me, what’s their angle with admitting PCR testing is redundant at this point? Is it public pressure, many of the COVID cult are questioning the PCR tests so maybe it’s this, is it to cover themselves because of the fraudulent stories designed to generate hysterics they pumped for months now, articles like this can be pointed at to claim they were impartial?
We know they are a PR machine for whoever pays the highest dollar, it’s probably because of another big pharma test in the pipeline about to be released, I’m sure it will be just as dodgy and designed to maintain the doomsday narrative, it will of course make billions for the company and investors selling it.
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.
The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina
This story sets off alarm bells for me, what’s their angle with admitting PCR testing is redundant at this point? Is it public pressure, many of the COVID cult are questioning the PCR tests so maybe it’s this, is it to cover themselves because of the fraudulent stories designed to generate hysterics they pumped for months now, articles like this can be pointed at to claim they were impartial?
We know they are a PR machine for whoever pays the highest dollar, it’s probably because of another big pharma test in the pipeline about to be released, I’m sure it will be just as dodgy and designed to maintain the doomsday narrative, it will of course make billions for the company and investors selling it.
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.
The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina