re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***

quote:

---

This thing really is over. No more sticky.

---

Holy shite, COVID is over.

quote:

---

It was a good run.

---

I was negative in the beginning of this thread, but there were several posters that made it solid in the end. Smash and WeWa you all did good work here, I ended sharing a lot of your links with others.

To continue posting articles on the subject.


Basically an op-ed in Science Mag pointing out that knowing CT values on PCR tests might be vital as we proceed in this thing.

Basically, low CT values indicate more highly infectious with a higher chance of severe disease. High CT likely indicates not infections, less severe disease, and/or past infection.

quote:

---

In a study published this week in Clinical Infectious Diseases, researchers led by Bernard La Scola, an infectious diseases expert at IHU-Méditerranée Infection, examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they harbored viable virus, indicating the patients were likely infectious. La Scola and his colleagues found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or below could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of the cases with CT values above 35. “It’s fair to say that having a higher viral load is associated with being more infectious,” says Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of California, San Francisco.

---

quote:

---

Broad access to CT values could also help epidemiologists track outbreaks, Mina says. If researchers see many low CT values, they could conclude an outbreak is expanding. But if nearly all CT values are high, an outbreak is likely waning. “We have to stop thinking of people as positive or negative, and ask how positive?” Mina says.

CT values could also help clinicians flag patients most at risk for severe disease and death. A report in June from researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine found that among 678 hospitalized patients, 35% of those with a CT value of 25 or less died, compared with 17.6% with a CT value of 25 to 30 and 6.2% with a CT value above 30. In August, researchers in Brazil found that among 875 patients, those with a CT value of 25 or below were more likely to have severe disease or die.

---

Article from The Lancet examining false positive PCR tests in the UK.

quote:

---

The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%. This rate could translate into a significant proportion of false-positive results daily due to the current low prevalence of the virus in the UK population, adversely affecting the positive predictive value of the test.

---

Pretty good read from The Atlantic discussing "cluster busting" as opposed to stopping the disease one by one, since the disease has been known to spread in "super spreader" events (80% of cases transmitted by only 20% of those infected).

quote:

---

I was negative in the beginning of this thread, but there were several posters that made it solid in the end.

---

I came in around page 450 when the guy in St. Louis was doxxed and the mob went after him because he had a kid test positive and he went out in public. There were more details, but I remember people wanting him to be sued and his life ruined. My My have things changed.

I'm pretty sure I was attacked and downvoted into oblivion. It's been fun going back and reading some of the responses to my posts about the overreaction and the actual implications and who this affects. WeWe and I went back and forth a lot about the seriousness of this thing. He changed his tune since then.

quote:

---

The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.

---

Are they saying 0.8-4.0% of all tests are false positives, or of the positives that 0.8-4.0% are false. Big difference and I'm guessing (hoping) it's the latter.

Yep thats the article Sasquatch linked earlier. I like how it talked about backwards tracing- look backwards to the source of the infection. Contact trace two or three people back looking for a possible super spreading event.

The key is rapid testing though. I like how the article talked about accuracy vs speed of a test. Speed is most important right now imo. Find out who has it quickly and isolate them.

Bumping the big thread with links (mostly Twitter)!

MIT geneticist discussing the problems with PCR testing and the "casedemic."

Gentleman documenting the CCP's hand in everything. Second link from the same guy with more Chinese shenanigans.

Thread from another MIT scientist giving a timeline on various publications/events and calling into question a lot of the genetics "science" for SARS 2.0. Link to her updated paper that no one seems to want to publish.

Science Mag article from June discussing some 54 scientists that got into trouble with the NIH and their institutions for not disclosing getting money from foreign sources (CCP mostly). Think the actual count ended up as over 100.

Article from Harvard's own paper highlighting that the largest donation in the school's history (Public Health specifically?), which is now the moniker of the School of Public Health (Chan), likely came from a highly dubious place...the CCP.

Is it any wonder why various public health experts are trumpeting the CCP lockdown strategy as the way to go for the Western world?

No we don't need a stickied thread so that chicken littles and freak out in.

It’ll be interesting to see what data we get as we move closer to a year of studies. I think Ohio is about to shut down.