Testing positive

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, May 14. 2021

Many people have been asking me what "testing positive" for COVID means. See today's news on the NY Yankees.

It seems clear that the more people you do nasal swabs on, the more positive results will occur. This virus will become endemic so many, and hopefully most, people will be exposed to it. Like the common cold, or the seasonal flu. Few will get significantly sick from it or even be aware of it.

The point is, a positive test does not mean that you are sick, and, if vaccinated, doesn't mean much of anything other than that somehow you were exposed. Furthermore, there are many (but still really unknown) numbers of false positives.

I think it makes sense to test people who are ill, but not random healthy people unless it is just an academic exercise.

Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 16:59 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Some asymptomatics are just as contagious.

The spam filter won't let me post a link, but if you put in the usual w's before this divided link it should work. pnasdotorg
slashcontent/118/21/e2104547118

#1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2021-05-14 17:54 (Reply)

That article concerns whether individuals carry infectious virons not whether they are in fact contagious.

While 50% at the time of the study might contain viable virons, a very small minority (~2%) of individuals carry 90% of them.

#1.1 Scissor (Link) on 2021-05-14 19:32 (Reply)

It can be cured for five dollars. Who gives a shit how contagious it is?

#1.2 ccoffer on 2021-05-15 08:11 (Reply)

Everyone has been exposed to it. To [pretend otherwise is foolish. It's been around for two years for godsake.

#2 ccoffer on 2021-05-14 20:51 (Reply)

The thing that I am still unsure about re: the positive COVID-19 test results, is the shifting scale on what constitutes a positive test. I am speaking about the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test where the Cycle Threshold for positive tests - the number of amplification cycles taken to reveal the presence of COVID RNA - has changed over time. Initially numbers as high as 42 cycles were recommended. Then it became 40. Then, 35. Some are still lower. Some left it up to the test manufacturer; Some states require the number to be quoted with the test result. The higher the number of cycles, the more likely a false positive is returned. Some of the WHO-recommended reductions in test cycles resulted in corresponding reductions in worldwide infections on the day they were introduced. There was another reduction (in the US) on the day of the inauguration. And the CDC now recommends post-vaccination testing to use 28 cycles or lower. Isn't this terribly arbitrary, re-defining what a 'positive' test result consists of? A positive test last year would not necessarily be one now!

#3 Aggie on 2021-05-14 21:47 (Reply)

Exactly right. It's the old change the goal post (for political reasons) game.

#3.1 Scissor (Link) on 2021-05-14 23:45 (Reply)

They changed the test to a lower threshold for the "vaccinated" as too many "vaccinated" were testing positive. The higher threshold is still used for the unvaccinated. Nice double standards as usual.

#3.2 indyjonesouthere on 2021-05-15 21:28 (Reply)

What Aggie said about PCR test amplification corrupting the numbers.

There’s a much larger issue here than just COVID. We put ourselves at constant risk when we rely exclusively on data to inform us and drive decision-making, especially government data that they then use to tell a story that — surprise! — needs a government solution.

Be wary of those who control defining, collecting, manipulating, and reporting data and then use it to create a story to influence some urgent agenda without proper data transparency.

They leverage the fact that people trust data because, hey, it’s data, you gonna argue with data?!

Yes I am. Lots of data is useless garbage: polls, unemployment rates, CPI, temperatures. And if it’s 10-20% garbage, it’s all garbage statistically, because it’s meaningless. And yet people trust it. This gets exploited, a lot.

#4 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2021-05-15 10:30 (Reply)

The weird science of the placebo effect keeps getting more interesting

https://www.vox.com/unexplainable/22405880/placebo-mystery-open-label-pain-medicine

#5 feeblemind on 2021-05-15 13:38 (Reply)

That phenom works both ways. I'm totally convinced that thousands of people were literally scared to death by the bullshit hysteria surrounding this strain of the flu. Add to that people being put on ventilators and dying from being put on them, I doubt all the numbers. We know overall mortality stats were totally flat during this supposed "pandemic".

That doesn't happen.

#5.1 ccoffer on 2021-05-16 08:32 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, May 14. 2021

Testing positive