Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone read up on the 'cycle threshold' when it comes to PCR tests?
 
Looks like if you run the PCR tests long enough nearly all will come up as positives. The experts at the CDC haven't set a uniform cycle threshold standard. Why not?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid...ity-using-a-test-to-lock-down-society/5728483

In the NYT, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them. Conclusion? “Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. »

The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40. “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. “And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “

In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT. And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.
 

Attachments

  • rona.png
    rona.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 20
SD51555 said:
Has anyone read up on the 'cycle threshold' when it comes to PCR tests?
Click to expand...

wife listens to doctor radio on serious. She told me about this last week as doctors were discussing on the station. Pretty much process “spin” the sample until it is positive.
 
ebb5eaf4cfe2c725bb167e34605b62a5.jpg

This is a label to a “spit test”

Can some explain to me what for research use only and not for use in diagnostic procedures means?

Seems pretty obvious to me but .....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hoytvectrix said:
The conclusions you make based on that study you linked are wrong. The purpose of that study was as you said, looking at infection. Masks are not purported to prevent infection, but to slow the spread using source control. Also, that meta-analysis was sampling mostly healthcare workers, people exposed to higher viral loads than an individual walking into a grocery store, which would certainly have an effect on how likely someone is to be exposed to a virus. Here is a write-up that goes into more detail on this source and others (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/video-misrepresents-the-science-behind-face-masks/).

Did you read the link to the study that I cited above your post (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117)? Because in that paper published in PNAS (an excellent journal) for a study conducted in Germany found that masks are very effective at slowing the spread of covid-19, which is ultimately what the stated purpose of the recommended masks is. There are literally dozens of other studies that show that they are effective at slowing the spread of the virus. I can create a list of them below if you would like, but it still will require the basic acknowledgement that masks are not intended to explicitly prevent infection, but are designed to slow the spread of the virus from someone who is infected.
Click to expand...
This is why I very much dislike commenting here at all for any reason, people will dispute the wording about a clearly worded conclusion like "Meta‐analysis with fixed‐effects model revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in preventing respiratory viral infections using N95 respirators and surgical masks". I didn't write the conclusion, take it up with the scientists at Wiley. Wiley is well respected.
There are many many many studies over the years that have similar conclusions regarding different masks and virus's that are easy to find with a simple search, you can question Wiley's collaboration of studies specifically comparing the effectiveness of N-95 masks and surgical masks vs a virus which I think you would agree are much more effective than a bandana. If you research this topic and conclude that you want to wear a mask, go ahead and wear one. If you want me to believe that wearing a cloth mask prevents the spread of a virus, the burden of proof is on you. Covid is a virus, any study that claims it rebuts every other study ever done because it suggests it slows Covid, I would suggest it is propaganda. The last time the general public used masks against a virus in US was the Spanish Flu, it was nothing more than a false sense of security which led to further spread.
There are also negative effects of long term wearing of masks by the general public.
If you feel Fauci has any integrity, see the short video below


followed by this
 
Lotta good this mask is doing. Fcuking idiot.
4F33744C-1635-49A3-9259-EEF6A99BE706.png
 
A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
web.archive.org

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the...
web.archive.org web.archive.org
 
S.T.Fanatic said:
Click to expand...
Twitter and Facebook take that down yet? Still a little to early to make this go away. I would like to know what the ranking member said to disparage him. Obviously he doesn’t speak the science we are supposed to be following.
 
MMR Vaccine Could Protect Against COVID-19 | ASM.org
asm.org

MMR Vaccine Could Protect Against COVID-19

The measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been theorized to provide protection against COVID-19. In a new study published in mBio, researchers provide further proof of this by showing that mumps IgG titers, or levels of IgG antibody, are inversely correlated with severity in recovered COVID-19...
asm.org asm.org
 
Oh remember, you can find anything to agree with your position on the internet. What do these guys know, they're just Doctors who actually treat patients.? <sarcasm off> It's too late, the state governments and school boards have already done their damage.
 
I haven't checked back here in some time, too busy hunting, but a couple interesting tidbits.

First, kudos to SD for picking up on the cycle threshold issue with the COVID PCR test. I'm not sure that it was here or the HuntNY forum, but I discussed how the recommended cycle threshold was IMHO resulting in too many false positives. The CT was set by CDC at 40, and being someone who does this on a daily basis, I could amplify COVID from a fart with 40 cycles. The argument is that it is better to err on the side of caution than to have false negatives. The CT was set by those much higher up the food chain than me, but it seems excessive.

Second, anybody notice how Cuomo has threatened another shutdown if we can't get COVID under control? But he says in the next breath that over 70% of transmission is occurring in the household. So, how does shutting down business make sense? It seems strictly punitive, to me. Like, "if you don't behave, then we are going to take away your toys".

I get that it is tough to convince people to distance in their own home, but honestly, these kind of threats make me want to puke. If you profess to be a science/numbers guy, stop with the mafia tactics.
 
Interesting update - I am on a Zoom call with some high ranking immunologists who oversee contact tracing. I mentioned the 70% number to them, and they said that it's a very soft number. Why? Because contact tracing is only ~20% effective in identifying who you might have caught it from. Obviously, if two people who socialize get it within several days of each other, that's a slam dunk. So, that 70% is really only seven tenths of 20%, or 14% overall., but the 14% number is likely the ceiling for in-house contracti.ng of COVID. That leaves a lot of unaccounted for infection sources. So maybe Cuomo isn't as wrong as I'd thought. He's still a bully though.

As usual, there's more to it than the simple numbers would suggest.
 
I think there’s hope for you yet. Lol
 
The numbers game still makes me question the severity of the deadly global coronavirus pandemic. Just today, the AM radio headline was quoting the number of people who've tested positive in South Dakota at something like 91,000. Why is that number relevant? If we're keeping a running total that never resets, the number of people that have contracted the flu in the United States is over 4 trillion. Fathom that in a country of only 350 million people.

Lotta vaccine chatter the last few days as well. Kinda wish they'd hedge their bet and not vaccinate the not-at-any-risk-at-all crowd. Just in case these untested mystery potions happen to have some side effects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top