Maybe you took your course in molecular genetics before sequencing was developed. But wouldn't the sequences done by the CDC pretty definitively identify COVID-19 vs. an influenza virus?
Specimens for WGS were collected during May 26–June 12; all 18 positive specimens with detectable virus (cycle threshold value <32) were sequenced using ClearDx instruments (Clear Laboratories), Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing technology, and SARS-CoV-2 ARTIC V3 protocol for amplicon sequencing.† Consensus genome assembly was performed in Terra using Titan Clear Laboratories workflow.§ All sequences generated were classified as the Delta variant. A phylogenetic tree was constructed using the UShER pipeline and visualized using Auspice.us¶ (4) (Figure 3).
“Maybe you took your course in molecular genetics before sequencing was developed. But wouldn’t the sequences done by the CDC pretty definitively identify COVID-19 vs. an influenza virus?”
I would think so, but we’re not talking about sequencing. We’re talking about the PCR test, which is not suitable for that. Here’s something I found:
The fact that a primer works for PCR does not ensure that it will work for sequencing. PCR reactions are exponential and can use newly created product as template. Sequencing is linear and creates many fragments of different sizes. They are not the same thing.
Everybody has been using the PCR, not full-bore, time-consuming, expensive sequencing. And that is what the CDC has admitted does not work.