• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

[Potential False-Positive Rate Among The 'Asymptomatic Infected Individuals' In Close Contacts Of CO

Gl;itch.e

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
732
Age
40
Location
New Zealand
Just my layman question, but why would you get false positives on a swab test? Isn't it a matter of bacteria being present or not?
 
J

jb116

Guest
"Conclusions: In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives."

What a joke. This nonsense pandemic is fabricated hysteria at its best.

Just my layman question, but why would you get false positives on a swab test? Isn't it a matter of bacteria being present or not?

It's not that black and white, especially when dealing with protein fragments, which is what viruses are. Taking into consideration the idea of retroviruses as peat mentioned, these permutations of dna and rna, as waste products of the cell when having been poisoned or stressed, can show up at any time, some resembling others. False positives are probably a very, very common thing.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2018
Messages
211
Thanks for posting this to the forum, I was very curious about the false positive rate as something seemed off. The full text link is also giving me the 404 error (same site that is linked to on the pubmed version [Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients]. - PubMed - NCBI ). I checked Sci-hub for the full article but whenever I entered the PMID it'd lead to the same 404 error page.

I believe this is the professor who is the main author but I don't see a direct way to contact him on the page: Zhuang Guihua-公共卫生学院
 

cardochav

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
64
It’s obviously fabricated and overhyped as decisions are being made over bad data .. I live near A Big City with an estimated population about 2.5 million and the news media said everything needs to shut down tomorrow although they’ve only had 3 confirmed cases.
 
Last edited:

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
It’s obviously fabricated and overhyped as decisions are being made over bad data .. I live near A Big City with an estimated population about 2.5 million and the news media said everything needs to shut down tomorrow although they’ve only had 3 confirmed cases.

That's a small number. My city's population is about the same and has upwards of 50 confirmed cases.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Isn't it a matter of bacteria being present or not?
SARS-COV-2 is virus, not bacteria.
"Conclusions: In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives."

What a joke. This nonsense pandemic is fabricated hysteria at its best.
I think its harder to detect smaller quantities of viral material accurately in unsymptomatic cases.
Even half false positives implies half true positives. That's still risky for pandemic.
It's harder to accurately tests in unsymptomatic cases because there is less viral material to detect. Doesn't mean they can't be contagious (though probably less so).

It’s obviously fabricated and overhyped as decisions are being made over bad data .. I live near A Big City with an estimated population about 2.5 million and the news media said everything needs to shut down tomorrow although they’ve only had 3 confirmed cases.
How many cases/how overloaded do hospitals have to be before you think action is warranted?
 
J

jb116

Guest
SARS-COV-2 is virus, not bacteria.

I think its harder to detect smaller quantities of viral material accurately in unsymptomatic cases.
Even half false positives implies half true positives. That's still risky for pandemic.
It's harder to accurately tests in unsymptomatic cases because there is less viral material to detect. Doesn't mean they can't be contagious (though probably less so).


How many cases/how overloaded do hospitals have to be before you think action is warranted?
That's fair enough, but ultimately from Peats perspective which I share, it's somewhat irrelevant. Since the second half of the story entailing the outcome should consider the metabolic status of the individual. The fact that there are many with false positives and asymptomatic is enough to conclude that even if they are contagious, it doesn't matter much assuming the person it "infects" also has good status metabolically. THIS is what is neglected by the mainstream.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Since the second half of the story entailing the outcome should consider the metabolic status of the individual. The fact that there are many with false positives and asymptomatic is enough to conclude that even if they are contagious, it doesn't matter much assuming the person it "infects" also has good status metabolically.
What level of metabolic health are you assuming there?
What proportion of the people in your country and the world do you think would meet that standard?

I might agree with you if everyone had great metabolic health. Since that's not the case, many people are very vulnerable.
I'm surprised by the number of posters who seem to be saying that since metabolic health is protective, they are not concerned about the epidemic.
Do none of these people have anyone they care about personally who might be vulnerable? Are they all really as unconcerned as they seem about their communities and the potential for rising deaths of people who are not in optimal metabolic health?
 

LUH 3417

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,860
Aviso de redireccionamiento

Well thank god we have the truth diggers at NYT for this unbiased and vigorously scientific article which tells us how exceptionally accurate the tests are. Notice there are no numbers or studies.
 
J

jb116

Guest
What level of metabolic health are you assuming there?
What proportion of the people in your country and the world do you think would meet that standard?

I might agree with you if everyone had great metabolic health. Since that's not the case, many people are very vulnerable.
I'm surprised by the number of posters who seem to be saying that since metabolic health is protective, they are not concerned about the epidemic.
Do none of these people have anyone they care about personally who might be vulnerable? Are they all really as unconcerned as they seem about their communities and the potential for rising deaths of people who are not in optimal metabolic health?
I'm not sure I'm understanding your question because there is a simple fact that some people aren't affected, some are, and some die. Of course metabolic health is a sliding scale; when I mention it, I mean it as a kind of relative measure. In a basic way, I could say not being affected is relatively better metabolic health, hence resistance to breakdown. I could then say vulnerability is itself a marker of lesser metabolic health. I could then say getting ill, in a range from slightly ill to extremely ill and everything in between as even lesser metabolic standing. Then death as an obvious ultimate marker of the least resistance. In essence, the picture that we are seeing actually defines this entire scale I just described in a basic way. My personal evidence that the efforts put forth here rooted in peat's perspectives and ideas is enough to tell me that it's not about wondering why isn't everybody sick, since metabolic health is perhaps rarer these days, but the fact that some make appropriate efforts executing these ideas, from diet to their immediate environment to perhaps supportive, exogenous substances. Therefore, our concern should be relative to what we know and how we are applying that knowledge to make ourselves more metabolically sound.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I'm not sure I'm understanding your question because there is a simple fact that some people aren't affected, some are, and some die.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I agree that some are affected more than others. What I didn't understand was:
even if they are contagious, it doesn't matter much assuming the person it "infects" also has good status metabolically.
This assumption only applies to people with 'good metabolic status'; getting infected matters for everyone else.
I got the impression you meant that the epidemic doesn't matter to healthy people.
 
J

jb116

Guest
Maybe I misunderstood you. I agree that some are affected more than others. What I didn't understand was:

This assumption only applies to people with 'good metabolic status'; getting infected matters for everyone else.
I got the impression you meant that the epidemic doesn't matter to healthy people.
Yes but more precisely the "epidemic" doesn't matter to good metabolic health. Saying it that way contains less contingent implication. i.e. it should matter to healthy people because they have loved ones who perhaps aren't healthy. And that's not my point, it's about the relativism of what we define as epidemic, what's fightable and preventable, and the question of the organism. Mainstream removes these factors and creates boogiemen.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
And that's not my point, it's about the relativism of what we define as epidemic, what's fightable and preventable, and the question of the organism. Mainstream removes these factors and creates boogiemen.
OK. But because there are lots of people who are vulnerable, epidemics can be dangerous. I don't think they are 'creating boogiemen'; they are describing real dangers. Reporting facts, cases/spread, deaths, what can and is being done. Although I am seeing things from where I am. Maybe the media in other places is doing it in less realistic ways.
I doubt it would be possible to eliminate the danger of this epidemic by somehow improving the metabolic health of vulnerable people enough to protect most or all of them in the relevant timeframe.

I would like to see the movements to promote and organise worldwide sustainable healthy food production, clean environments, healthy sustainable work an social and economic relations etc get a whole lot more sway as an ongoing project. That way lies hope for more robust populations.
 
J

jb116

Guest
OK. But because there are lots of people who are vulnerable, epidemics can be dangerous. I don't think they are 'creating boogiemen'; they are describing real dangers. Reporting facts, cases/spread, deaths, what can and is being done. Although I am seeing things from where I am. Maybe the media in other places is doing it in less realistic ways.
I doubt it would be possible to eliminate the danger of this epidemic by somehow improving the metabolic health of vulnerable people enough to protect most or all of them in the relevant timeframe.

I would like to see the movements to promote and organise worldwide sustainable healthy food production, clean environments, healthy sustainable work an social and economic relations etc get a whole lot more sway as an ongoing project. That way lies hope for more robust populations.
You are focused on the wrong thing. I never said epidemics can't be dangerous. I'm addressing why they can be dangerous. That why is different than the usual why. This peatarian perspective is never talked about in the mainline. Of course they create boogiemen. It's always the narrative: you can't do anything about your health other than listen to them and take their poisons. Not talking about other factors that contribute to poor health and create vulnerability when in the presence of a given virus is in fact creating a boogieman. If our grandparent never calmly spoke to us about why we feel there was a boogieman under the bed - that we perhaps ate something we shouldn't have for example - then they would have contributed to our skewed perspective of reality. That is no different as adults in a world of authoritarians spewing lies and/or half-truths. People generally have Hollywood ideas about viruses and perhaps health in general, it's been ingrained.

Again, what you say is confusing to me. How can you say you "doubt it would be possible to eliminate the danger" regarding metabolic health and then go on to say "like to see the movements to promote and organise worldwide sustainable healthy food production, clean environments, healthy sustainable work an social and economic relations etc"?? You are saying the same thing as me! I don't disagree with you one iota. Don't mistakenly remove those initiatives from the concept of "improving metabolic health." They are each part of the metabolic enhancing toolkit. I don't disagree one bit.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
You are saying the same thing as me! I don't disagree with you one iota.
Yes, I think we have significant areas of agreement.
It's always the narrative: you can't do anything about your health other than listen to them and take their poisons.
Given the nature of 'boogiemen', I guess perspectives on them are bound to be somewhat subjective, so I'm not sure there's much to be gained by me pursuing that line.

While I certainly think it would be good if everyone had access to better information about how we can take care of our long term health, and lived in societies that supported that, during a crisis, it's important to focus on the important short-term actions needed. with at least as much priority. It's the right thing to do to inform people of the dangers and let them know what they can do about it.

ATM, following public health advice to reduce contact and increase hygiene measures and therefore slow the spread of infection is one of the really important things that everyone can do, even if it's not the only thing. I expect that at least some of the pharmaceuticals that have been used in the hospitals for the most severe infections are have been useful and lifesaving. Slowing the spread of the epidemic right now may be one of the most important things people can do to save lives - we don't know for sure, but it could be at least thousands, and maybe millions. In the short term, I think that is worth focussing on.

We don't need an either/or polarisation, we need both.
 

cardochav

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
64
How many cases/how overloaded do hospitals have to be before you think action is warranted?

Do you think the action to shut down nonessential businesses and limit public gatherings to grocery stores causing them to be overcrowded was a good action? Do you think this would lower the number of cases? I guess I just felt the need to share my opinion to balance out the fear mongering going on in the media.
 

Similar threads

Top