Definition of a "case" ???

[Hippocampus]

Z your statement is just illogical . You pick one version of one type of test. You are right that a version of antibody testing had high false positive and high false negatives. It was thrown out and is no longer in use. Even when in use accounted for a extremely small number of tests. In fact multiple versions of various types of tests have been thrown out. Thinking about all testing incorrect results may have produced less than 5% variance overall. I’ve discussed the types of tests in an earlier post. Please read it. Please understand at this point for the purposes of epidemiological study the false negative/positive rate of testing is included in the analysis. Please understand as PCR testing has become more widely available and other forms of testing improved your statement doesn’t hold water.

I don’t know what you mean by “scans”. Never heard that term in relationship to this issue. I don’t know the specifics of B.C. The statement that “any corona type virus” confuses me as this is a novel virus and all the testing I know about tests for constituents only seen on that virus. Please supply sources for your statements.

 

[sunchaser]

What is the definition of a "case"?

The media are reporting any positive test result as a "case".

Other sources of information define a "case" as a person with a positive test and symptoms.

Why am I seeing conflicting information?

According to my daughter, an AZ based health professional, each AZ test is logged into a data base containing information specific to that individual. Each positive test on that individual then is tracked as one case. The information is digitally transferred to the CDC, Johns Hopkins, WHO, Imperial etc for worldwide compilation.

The AZ health department is continually calling each positive Case as to progress. In the US, each state's health department is vital as to tracking infectious diseases like COVID. Obviously some states do better than others.

Hopefully now that the US election is settled the US citizenry will hold their individual Governor's responsible for pass or fail on virus fighting protocols. No more free passes for the bad record of certain well known Governors.

 

[Hippocampus]

Good post Sun and accurate. The one caveat is the prior post concerning accuracy of initial testing protocols does have some merit. Once again due to failure of our federal government to support academic institutions, state governments and private vendors in certification of the various tests and testing protocols there was a period when testing, particularly antibody, had much to want. There was a excellent description of this in a segment of 60 minutes when due to the absence of testing material a teaching facility developed their own test but was unable to get it certified in spite of very low rates of false negatives or positives. Simultaneously very inaccurate tests of questionable origin were in wide spread use.
The public needs to understand our health agencies (FDA,CDC, HSS etc.) all had protocols in place but unfortunately they were not followed.

 

[KnotYet]

https://covr.sos.ca.gov/?step=2
Did you by chance answer what your preferred party is when you registered. Makes it a whole lot easier to poll only democrats to get the result you want.

Your statement makes no sense, in line with what Rush and Sean are spewing.
The polling I am aware of is intended to give accurate results but is subject to error.
The error will have many sources, including deliberate misleading answers by pollees.

 

[SteveK]

Your statement makes no sense, in line with what Rush and Sean are spewing.
The polling I am aware of is intended to give accurate results but is subject to error.
The error will have many sources, including deliberate misleading answers by pollees.

No sense? I provided the California voter registration form which asks what is your preferred party. I asked if you checked one of the boxes to let them know your preference.

 

[KnotYet]

No sense? I provided the California voter registration form which asks what is your preferred party. I asked if you checked one of the boxes to let them know your preference.

Now you can document the way that is used to poll.
I venture that such questions appear on most state registrations for primary elections.

 

[rgano]

I read an article, source now forgotten, that stated some (all?) of the early vaccines will not kill the virus but rather prevent the symptoms. Can somebody here smarter than I am in the medical field (a person who has simply walked near a medical school qualifies) tell us about this and whether a vaccinated person could still transmit the bug if the vaccine does not ill the bug?

 

[Hippocampus]

Rich that’s most misleading. Vaccines cost huge money and time to develop. All are aimed at giving you total protection from the infectious agent be it bacterial (pneumonocccus etc.) or viral (influenza, shingles, measles etc.). None are entirely successful. Some are nearly totally successful (tetanus) others partially (flu). But even when not totally successful in preventing the infection commonly they decrease the severity of the illness should you get it. . All medical interventions are judged as a risk benefit decision.
With any vaccine you may have a misdirected immune response causing illnesses like serum sickness or guillian barre syndrome. Some maybe allergic to the carrier the vaccine is in as well.
On the other hand you may have some who shouldn’t be vaccinated because of pre existing conditions.
On the benefit side you may have complete protection or various degrees of protection. So ultimately you judge degree of efficacy against risk of side effect.
Overlying the whole discussion is R. If you get enough people vaccinated the infectious agent has no place to go so gradually decreases in prevalence. When this continues sufficiently it is virtually gone. Small pox is a good example of that occurrence. Therefore it so important every who can vaccinates. Not only are you protecting yourself you’re protecting all those around you as the odds you will be a vector of disease decreases dramatically and if the you’re one of the overwhelming majority you can’t be a vector.

 

[rgano]

Rich that’s most misleading. Vaccines cost huge money and time to develop. All are aimed at giving you total protection from the infectious agent be it bacterial (pneumonocccus etc.) or viral (influenza, shingles, measles etc.). None are entirely successful. Some are nearly totally successful (tetanus) others partially (flu). But even when not totally successful in preventing the infection commonly they decrease the severity of the illness should you get it. . All medical interventions are judged as a risk benefit decision.
With any vaccine you may have a misdirected immune response causing illnesses like serum sickness or guillian barre syndrome. Some maybe allergic to the carrier the vaccine is in as well.
On the other hand you may have some who shouldn’t be vaccinated because of pre existing conditions.
On the benefit side you may have complete protection or various degrees of protection. So ultimately you judge degree of efficacy against risk of side effect.
Overlying the whole discussion is R. If you get enough people vaccinated the infectious agent has no place to go so gradually decreases in prevalence. When this continues sufficiently it is virtually gone. Small pox is a good example of that occurrence. Therefore it so important every who can vaccinates. Not only are you protecting yourself you’re protecting all those around you as the odds you will be a vector of disease decreases dramatically and if the you’re one of the overwhelming majority you can’t be a vector.

Thanks. I wish I had that article to hand for reference. It surely confused me, certainly not to the extent of making me not want to be vaccinated. Anti-vaxers and the relatively large percentage of Americans saying they will not take the vaccine vex the hell out of me. Just like the idiots not wearing masks in crowded public areas like grocery stores. CV19 will not magically disappear, and our public education is seriously broken in this regard.

 

[Peter B]

Hard to blame Americans for being confused re masks, vaccines, etc, because of so many mixed messages from the top. Hopefully after today, or soon anyway, the message about covid will take on more focus, and a more effective national strategy will emerge.

Here in Australia, the southern state of Victoria had a quite severe spike in cases due to poor management of quarantine, so the border had to be closed, and strict measures re-introduced, much to the dismay of many - but it worked..! As of now no new cases in Victoria for over a week now, and no more deaths, and few still in hospital. It isn't easy, but it can be done.

Here in Queensland, West Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, where restrictions were introduced early, we are basically Covid free, and virtually normal life resumed. Just last night we were able to hold an All Blacks v's Australian Wallabies Rugby match with a normal sized crowd. NSW and Victoria are not far behind now.

So, don't lose heart - just keep doing the right things, and in time and with the help of vaccines, it will die down.

 

[rgano]

Ah, I found the article I was referring to earlier.

https://www.eatthis.com/first-covid-vaccine-prevent-symptoms-fauci/

What is the expert opinion of this?

 

[Hippocampus]

If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great," he added. "But what I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease."

Fauci has previously said he would like to see a coronavirus vaccine that is 70% to 75% effective, but the first vaccine may only be 50% to 60% effective. This incomplete protection, coupled with the reluctance of many Americans to get the first version of the vaccine, means the vaccine alone may not end the crisis

Here’s the quote. In layman’s terms he’s talking about two different things so agree it’s confusing.
First,he’s saying if the vaccine knocked down the number of virus particles able to replicate in you so you could take care of the rest yourself while having minimal symptoms that would be good enough. At the end you would survive and hopefully be immune to reinfection for awhile.
Second, he’s saying in some people the vaccine may not work at all. But as long as it works in 50% of people or more it’s worth doing. That’s because 50% or greater is sufficient to drive the R down to 1 or lower and the pandemic would go away.

Of course you want a vaccine with a very low rate of serious adverse reactions (<1/100000) and adverse reactions <1/10000) and mild <1/1000). You also want efficacy above 60% to prevent significant clinical significant symptoms and even higher to prevent death. The confusion in the quote is morbidity and mortality aren’t distinguished nor is the impact for an individual person versus the epidemiological impact for the society at large. Definitely confusing quote. See why you had difficulty with it.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. rg. I take a bit of exception to the comment by Robert Redfield (CDC). "...this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me..." I think the fact that OTHER people are masked will minimize YOUR infection is more appropriate with regards masking. Suggesting that a face mask is protecting oneself is not the case from what I understand and could give a false sense security to the wearer leading them to ignore social distancing and gathering cautions.


That's a pretty irresponsible article IMO along the same lines as other sources of dangerous misinformation:


https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/fake-coronavirus-cures-part-1-mms-is-industrial-bleach/

 

[rgano]

If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great," he added. "But what I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease."

Fauci has previously said he would like to see a coronavirus vaccine that is 70% to 75% effective, but the first vaccine may only be 50% to 60% effective. This incomplete protection, coupled with the reluctance of many Americans to get the first version of the vaccine, means the vaccine alone may not end the crisis

Here’s the quote. In layman’s terms he’s talking about two different things so agree it’s confusing.
First,he’s saying if the vaccine knocked down the number of virus particles able to replicate in you so you could take care of the rest yourself while having minimal symptoms that would be good enough. At the end you would survive and hopefully be immune to reinfection for awhile.
Second, he’s saying in some people the vaccine may not work at all. But as long as it works in 50% of people or more it’s worth doing. That’s because 50% or greater is sufficient to drive the R down to 1 or lower and the pandemic would go away.

Of course you want a vaccine with a very low rate of serious adverse reactions (<1/100000) and adverse reactions <1/10000) and mild <1/1000). You also want efficacy above 60% to prevent significant clinical significant symptoms and even higher to prevent death. The confusion in the quote is morbidity and mortality aren’t distinguished nor is the impact for an individual person versus the epidemiological impact for the society at large. Definitely confusing quote. See why you had difficulty with it.

Thank you for the help with that. My personal plan is to get the first available vaccine as well as any second appearing vaccine which is proven significantly more effa/ective than the first one I got. Anything wrong with that reasoning?

 

[Hippocampus]

Morbidity and mortality has been reported monthly in the US for as long as I can remember. Also each decent hospital does it’s own. It’s truly a shame how disreputable politicians and commercial scam artists have used pseudoscience to further personal gain. Would like to see wrongful deaths suits result but the way our tort system is set up that’s unlikely.
The thing with masks is to distinguish the difference between efficacy in preventing
Transmission to you
Transmission from you
They are two very different things. Personally wear a surgical mask when in low risk environments and a N95 or KN95 when in high.

 

[Hippocampus]

Perfect reasoning.

 

[sbu22]

Hippo - I think Z was referring to PCR amplification cycles and the pro/con arguments between using 30 or 40 cycles to obtain the result. The 40 cycle guys say that is too sensitive, leading to C-19 positive results due to harmless loads of viral residue.

Or perhaps the "pooling" of samples for analysis as a reagent conservation measure.

 

[Hippocampus]

Pooling of samples for surveillance protocols makes perfect sense but not to decrease demand for reagents in my view from the little I understand. Think it should be avoided when reporting individual tests. I’m unaware if firm sensitivity/specificity numbers are available for such deviations from standard protocols. Wife worked as lab tech prior to getting her RN. She tells me after changing protocol, even in the most minor way, they would go through the whole rigmarole to re establish those numbers. I have minimal background in lab medicine so defer to you or others who are more knowledgeable. Do think it’s most unfortunate this far in to the pandemic that lack of reagent supply is still a concern.
As regards sensitivity driving up false positives what is your view? Please expand your thinking on this. I believe there are false positives and negatives but they are relatively unchanged in rate so the curves appearing in the public press are accurate in demonstrating trends. Continue to find the absence of confidence intervals in the public press representation of data maybe undercutting public trust. It’s a simple concept so it’s inclusion might get some to accept the current reality.