Posted on 08/30/2020 12:49:58 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in July carried barely any traces of the virus and it could be because today's tests are 'too sensitive', experts say.
Health experts say PCR testing - the most widely used diagnostic test for COVID-19 in the US - are too sensitive and need to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their systems because they're likely not contagious.
Today the PCR test, which provides a yes or no answer if a patient is infected, doesn't say how much of the virus a patient has in their body.
PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests typically take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very small amounts of the virus that don't pose a risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“The more the narrative about COVID keeps falling apart, the worse the dems look for keeping the lockdowns going.”
Ideally. Sadly, the ones with the power don’t care about the truth and the true narrative. They’ll continue keeping us oppressed by extending lockdowns. They don’t care if they look bad; annihilating Trump’s re-election chance is their only goal. (We all must revolt together!)
Not sure I understand your question, but if I do ... I believe the 99.97% figure isn’t figured on the percentage of every human being in America. It’s based on the number of people who got the virus and didn’t die.
When can we get rid if these dang masks?!!
Much of what you State is in fact true. But unfortunately For the argument it doesn’t distract from the points I made.
Motivations, cause and effect, other possibilities, other potential causes, all of these are possible but it doesn’t reduce the known facts.
The bottom line is that many people died from this disease that otherwise would not have died when they did.
However wearing a mask will help concentrate any virus particles present
Bullshit.
Probably, but the poster said it applied to "the rest of us" and I doubt they assumed we were all Covid survivors.
I agree, CoVid19 is taking many people who were already not going to live another year. There are a few rarer cases that may have lived longer than a year, but not most of them.
I am talking about people with advanced fee cancer liver failure or renal failure. I have practiced for 30 years and 8 can pretty much tell you if someone will die within a year of their advanced disease. no unsupported guesses.
***You do realize this means 1M dead Americans, right?***
1 million dead Americans? Really? Over what time frame? 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years? More?
Would you like to revise your statement? Hint, double check your math.
Well, isn’t it more like 99,000 or so???
“Health experts say PCR testing - the most widely used diagnostic test for COVID-19 in the US - are too sensitive and need to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their systems because they’re likely not contagious.”
Maybe there is some sanity in the midst of all of the idiocy that is being fomented on us.
“The covid has a 99.97 Percent survivability rate for the rest of us.
You do realize this means 1M dead Americans, right?”
Math not your strong suit?
It’s 231k, give or take a rounding error.
The inventor of PCT said, in an interview a few weeks ago, that it is not meant to be a diagnostic test, and should not be used as such. In fact, none of the PCR tests for covid have been validated to FDA standards. None. Zero. Zip.
They would fail validation because of high Error Of Measurement (EOM) rates. Somthey don’t even try. Why not? Well, the FDA gave everyone waivers to use them anyway. For real.
Like any toxin, alive or dead, it’s the dose that kills. A couple virus particles won’t kill anyone. Even bubble-boy can fight off a couple. You need a high enough number to overwhelm your immune system in it’s current state.
The PCR test amplifies whatever virus or dead virus particles it finds, over and over, each cycle roughly doubles them. So yeah, given enough cycles, it could show positive for a single dead virus particle leftover from weeks ago. The CDC says so.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html
Where the cutoff is is important. How many cycles do you run? How many times is enough? Enough to be sick, infect someone, should be the cutoff, not a gazillion cycles. As I said it’s not meant to be a diagnostic test in the first place. There is no standard of cycles, or even reagents across countries.
Didier Raoault did a study in April, said cutoff should be around 32 cycles. Some labs do 40, for real. All those results from those labs are meaningless.
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9
So are you still asserting that “ the majority of people who died from COVID would have died from something else” within the year? Remember, a majority of 177000 people is a lot of people.
How can you know, or predict, or guess that a majority of people would have died from anything? I have never heard anyone claim that most people who died from the virus would have died anyway.
Perhaps something got lost in translation.
Interesting that you say the inventor said it was not to be used as a diagnostic.
Perhaps he/you meant to say it was not to be used *by itself* as a diagnostic?
Obviously it can identify the virus and , in subsequent tests, then show it’s growth in the patient.
Of course a professional wouldn’t order more tests without cause- such as the development of symptoms.
I was taking specifically about the people in my financial planners office we were discussing. I think a fair number of people who died of covid were unlikely to live the year out I know of many at the hospital I work in that fall in that category. I have one friend who lost her mother to covid - 96 and in a nursing home. her mother had no symptoms she died in her sleep and tested positive after death. A majority? I don’t know. a significant number yes.
given that over half the deaths in New York were in nursing homes let’s just say people aren’t in nursing homes because they are in robust health. I fill out death certificates all the time. Sometimes the cause of death is clear, other times you take your best guess. the immediate cause of death is often something people would not die or without very serious contribution from chronic diseases that are listed further down the certificate/. Probably a longer answer than you wanted.
No, a better answer because your response now makes more sense to me.
No doubt that sick people and fragile old people clearly are more prone to die than healthy people, but I don’t think we can extrapolate from that truism that the virus was not deadly in and of itself. Of course the statistics are going to be confusing because the deaths are multi caused. But I think it is fair to say that without the virus, at least initially, more people would be alive.
Yeah, I screwed that up.
It does show that the 99.97% is wrong, though, since we’ve already lost nearly twice that number.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.