Anything good coming out of Covid?

[Foggy]

Check on that.

Seems elevated body temperature, along with other tests now used to identify
the virus, virus antibodies or virus antigens are not reliably 'specific' or 'sensitive'.
Thus, much heralded "testing, testing, testing" is not what it is cranked up to be;
too many false negatives or maybe worse - false positives.

Ex: The White House apparently uses the relatively new Abbott Lab COVID-19
Antibody test (detects IgG) since it is fast and there many people thru there daily.
The problem is the results, according to some studies, show that this test misses
about half of positive cases!

So, IMHO it's the Wild West with multiple Snake Oil salesmen milking the Country
while the Sheriff is telling us everything is under control.

Aye.

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

So far, I have received two new words... fomite and afibrile. That’s not bad.

 

[ssobol]

...
Ex: The White House apparently uses the relatively new Abbott Lab COVID-19
Antibody test (detects IgG) since it is fast and there many people thru there daily.
The problem is the results, according to some studies, show that this test misses
about half of positive cases!
....

The hospital where my sister works in the ER uses the swab test. Anyone who comes in for any sort of non-emergency issue has to have a Covid-19 test before the procedure can be done. I don't know what the failure rate on the swab test is, but it takes hours to get the result vs. minutes for the Abbott test.

 

[thataway]

...
Ex: The White House apparently uses the relatively new Abbott Lab COVID-19
Antibody test (detects IgG) since it is fast and there many people thru there daily.
The problem is the results, according to some studies, show that this test misses
about half of positive cases!
....

The hospital where my sister works in the ER uses the swab test. Anyone who comes in for any sort of non-emergency issue has to have a Covid-19 test before the procedure can be done. I don't know what the failure rate on the swab test is, but it takes hours to get the result vs. minutes for the Abbott test.

It is my understanding that the White House is using the Abbott ID NOW test, not the IGG (which would be sign of past infection). There are studies that the Abbott tests also gives false negatives. The recent study at NYU comparing with another method gives 48% false negatives. (Earlier studies suggested a 15% false negative rate)

I suspect that both of the ref. tests use nasal swabs--if the outpatient is using the "Cephoid". test which takes 45 minutes it probably has a higher rate of accuracy

At this point we have to assume that any of the tests are going to have a certain degree of falsely negative tests. The swab technique can vary (it should be deep into the posterior oral pharynx--past the nasal turbinates (deep enough that it is extremely uncomfortable and brings tears). Often swabs are only of the more superficial areas--just up the nose, to the turbinates (mucous membranes in the nose itself). .

 

[hardee]

...
Ex: The White House apparently uses the relatively new Abbott Lab COVID-19
Antibody test (detects IgG) since it is fast and there many people thru there daily.
The problem is the results, according to some studies, show that this test misses
about half of positive cases!
....

The hospital where my sister works in the ER uses the swab test. Anyone who comes in for any sort of non-emergency issue has to have a Covid-19 test before the procedure can be done. I don't know what the failure rate on the swab test is, but it takes hours to get the result vs. minutes for the Abbott test.

It is my understanding that the White House is using the Abbott ID NOW test, not the IGG (which would be sign of past infection). There are studies that the Abbott tests also gives false negatives. The recent study at NYU comparing with another method gives 48% false negatives. (Earlier studies suggested a 15% false negative rate)

I suspect that both of the ref. tests use nasal swabs--if the outpatient is using the "Cephoid". test which takes 45 minutes it probably has a higher rate of accuracy

At this point we have to assume that any of the tests are going to have a certain degree of falsely negative tests. The swab technique can vary (it should be deep into the posterior oral pharynx--past the nasal turbinates (deep enough that it is extremely uncomfortable and brings tears). Often swabs are only of the more superficial areas--just up the nose, to the turbinates (mucous membranes in the nose itself). .

The swab test, in order to be accurate MUST be from deep into the post nasopharynx, not just into the nares. SO, for those doing self testing, and for many who are not educated in the technique, there is a higher chance of a negative (false negative) test. Any testor that is doing shallow swabs, or oral swabs is almost guaranteed to get a negative reading. Like Bob says, a deep swab is going to be very uncomfortable, bring tears and will use nearly the full length of a 6" swab.

Tyboo, I have noticed that same thing. Could have half filled a box with blue gloves last week at Wallyworld -- pigs :evil: POh, an I have carried blue nitrile gloves in my vehicles for years. Those and a cylinder of Clorox wipes and a bottle of water for cleanup after stopping at accident scenes.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[Foggy]

...
Ex: The White House apparently uses the relatively new Abbott Lab COVID-19
Antibody test (detects IgG) since it is fast and there many people thru there daily.
The problem is the results, according to some studies, show that this test misses
about half of positive cases!
....

SNIP
At this point we have to assume that any of the tests are going to have a certain degree of falsely negative tests. SNIP

My take on this:

"At this point" = Early in our COVID-19 disease knowledge

"we have to assume" = We don't know, just sort of a guess,
kind of a first try attempt (aka 'makes an a.. out of you and me')

"that any of the tests" = Probably most, maybe all

"are going to have a certain degree" = Seems 30% - 50%, or so,
false (-) is way too high to be using to effectively monitor a pandemic.
This is a big MAYBE.

"of falsely negative tests." = To effectively monitor the virus, a valid (+)
result is needed. A (+) test result means you isolate to prevent further spread.
A valid false (-) test result is the WORST result meaning:
MAYBE you are (-) now but could be (+) later,
MAYBE you are (+) now and don't know,
regardless MAYBE now you are a threat to others and can spread the
disease (the worst).

We need more worldwide cohesive truth, science and cooperation to avoid falling
back into the pre-Enlightenment world of Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) where
"life of man, [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Aye.

 

[Foggy]

To update the above, in the US, testing still sucks - mostly due to lag time in
getting results and the tests themselves showing too many false negatives.
Now, 5 months or so after we really need good testing, it hasn't happened, so
I doubt it will. No proven vaccine, some advances in therapy (non definitive)
and maybe other developments.

As for now, the best we can do is prevention by wearing masks (more masks
are better than fewer, keep physical distances (more is better (20' beats 6' any
day) and avoiding indoor crowds.

The Texas Medical Association has developed a COVID-19 activities risk chart
(in color!!) from low risk @ 1 to high risk @ 10.
Ex:
1 Opening the mail
2 Playing tennis
5 Going shopping at a mall
7 traveling by plane
etc

See it all here:

https://www.ibtimes.com/texas-medical-a ... ed-3007467

Aye.

 

[KevinDU]

Hi, Republican C-Brats, Kevin here again. Just out of curiosity, how many of you are planning to vote for Trump if say, by the beginning of November, 200,000 Americans have died because Trump refuses to mandate the wearing of masks?

 

[ssobol]

Hi, Republican C-Brats, Kevin here again. Just out of curiosity, how many of you are planning to vote for Trump if say, by the beginning of November, 200,000 Americans have died because Trump refuses to mandate the wearing of masks?

>140K+ have already died, why do we have to wait till 200K die before we make a decision?