@metal-brainsaid Try reading your own article. It doesn't say it is false, just partly false and reuters has done fake fact checking before. How much is unlikely? Why no percentage stated? Is "unlikely" relative to opinion?
Your own article says it used PCR tests. I refer you to my source that says they can falsely test positive from other coronaviruses. What is that? Partly true?
T ...[text shortened]... e. Why are they only using 2? Are they trying to get inaccurate results? That is what it seems like.
I dunno man. They're probably using two sets of primers because it's cheaper and faster.
Nothing's perfect. Diagnostics can be wrong in lots of different contexts apart from virus testing. In this case, there are several different kinds of tests out there, with varying degrees of accuracy, speed, and cost.
@wildgrasssaid I dunno man. They're probably using two sets of primers because it's cheaper and faster.
Nothing's perfect. Diagnostics can be wrong in lots of different contexts apart from virus testing. In this case, there are several different kinds of tests out there, with varying degrees of accuracy, speed, and cost.
In other words, they are sacrificing accuracy to save money. Is it a worthy sacrifice?
Why not use all 3? Is public health not worth the expense? I suppose you think the economy is not worth that much. What about the truth? How much is the truth worth?
@metal-brainsaid In other words, they are sacrificing accuracy to save money. Is it a worthy sacrifice?
Why not use all 3? Is public health not worth the expense? I suppose you think the economy is not worth that much. What about the truth? How much is the truth worth?
I don't get what you're talking about. Truth? Economy? Are we still talking about a diagnostic test?
Yes of course. Accuracy is sacrificed to save time and money. We're not sequencing viral genomes of every patient because it's prohibitively expensive and labor intensive.
@wildgrasssaid I don't get what you're talking about. Truth? Economy? Are we still talking about a diagnostic test?
Yes of course. Accuracy is sacrificed to save time and money. We're not sequencing viral genomes of every patient because it's prohibitively expensive and labor intensive.
We are talking about PCR tests coming up positive because they detected another coronavirus, the common cold and flu. That would explain why cold and flu cases appear to be very low. They are being counted as C19.
Are you interested in finding out with accurate testing?
I already know the death toll from C19 is inaccurate. Just count all deaths from any cause in 2020 and it isn't that bad. And that is despite lockdowns causing deaths which is known. Depression and alcohol consumption took it's toll on people and they didn't even get the virus.
The total deaths in 2020 are about the same as a bad flu year about 12 years ago. Look into it.
"Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated."
@Metal-Brain They still are the best thing we have against C19 outside of vaccines and outright cures.
You want evidence to boost your own antivax stance, pure and simple.
@sonhousesaid @Metal-Brain They still are the best thing we have against C19 outside of vaccines and outright cures.
You want evidence to boost your own antivax stance, pure and simple.
There are effective antiviral medications available that work well.
@metal-brainsaid Here is the conclusion from the link below:
"Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform t ...[text shortened]... need to be updated."
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Cloth face masks are useless.
The authors of this article, published in 2015, have written a response to their work in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge our readers to consider the response when reading the article. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.responses#covid-19-shortages-of-masks-and-the-use-of-cloth-masks-as-a-last-resort
@metal-brainsaid We are talking about PCR tests coming up positive because they detected another coronavirus, the common cold and flu. That would explain why cold and flu cases appear to be very low. They are being counted as C19.
Are you interested in finding out with accurate testing?
I already know the death toll from C19 is inaccurate. Just count all deaths from any cause in 2020 ...[text shortened]... .
The total deaths in 2020 are about the same as a bad flu year about 12 years ago. Look into it.
Again, no medical test is perfect. The testing is reasonably accurate though, and your posted article makes no claim that PCR test cross reacts with the common cold. Indeed, many people who are sick test negative for COVID, and there are certainly a non-zero number of false-negatives we should throw into the mix here.
I feel like I've asked a number of times here on this thread: What is your point? Are you suggesting a ban on alcohol?
@wildgrasssaid The authors of this article, published in 2015, have written a response to their work in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge our readers to consider the response when reading the article. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.responses#covid-19-shortages-of-masks-and-the-use-of-cloth-masks-as-a-last-resort
That is not true. Only one of three of the authors of that article are in the one you posted. That doesn't prove anything.
@wildgrasssaid Again, no medical test is perfect. The testing is reasonably accurate though, and your posted article makes no claim that PCR test cross reacts with the common cold. Indeed, many people who are sick test negative for COVID, and there are certainly a non-zero number of false-negatives we should throw into the mix here.
I feel like I've asked a number of times here on this thread: What is your point? Are you suggesting a ban on alcohol?
"The testing is reasonably accurate though"
What is your source of information?
What percentage is considered "reasonably accurate"?
This is not a trivial issue. It is important!
That article is about antigen tests, NOT PCR tests!
The only part of your article that addresses PCRs says "when they are administered properly". Now you have to prove they are administered properly and we are back to that 2 out of 3 instead of 3 out of 3 thing we started with.
The science of face masks
10 Mar '21 15:38
Back to Top