Harris suspends travel after staffer tests COVID-19 positive

Dutch Uncle said:
At least you're smart enough to drop the pretense that it was this month.
Click to expand...

He never said "this month" you dishonest dunce.

tenor.gif
 
Legion said:
Screen-Shot-2020-10-12-at-10.09.31-AM.png


Testing positive for the China virus is meaningless, too.

Up to 90 percent of the people who receive a positive test are carrying so little virus that they probably aren’t contagious.

This is because testing used something called a PCR test.

In this test, a test sample is run through a machine that amplifies any DNA particles found in it. Each time you run the sample through the machine you amplify the DNA a bit more.

•In the current PCR testing, they run that sample through 40 times.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times.

If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

• The standard for these tests is 30-35 cycles.

•By cycling to 40 times, it means we have positive infection counts that are about 10 times higher than they really are.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said

Epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told The Times that a proper cutoff would be somewhere between 30-35 cycles. That would mean the amount of viral DNA in the sample would have to be 100 to 1,000 times higher to generate a positive result.

So this is, let's go with the vernacular, part of the "hoax".

We've been fed data that infectious cases are currently at 6.04 million when, because of the way this test is being done, may actually only be a little over 600,000.

But it may be even lower:

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request.

In July, the lab identified 794 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

The virus is most definitely real. The actual case count ... not so much.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
Click to expand...
:good4u:
 
Truth Detector said:
Read the bolded you mental midget. You're in the "fools, liars and ignorance" category. You really are a Tard.
Click to expand...

I know what you said. The "fools, liars and ignorance" have been eliminated, leaving the part about arguments.

Me and T.A. Gardner laughing about the "butt masks" in the OP are not being fools, liars and being ignorant.

Next time follow the conversation, Prudy Boy.
 
katzgar said:
What's becoming obvious is that you low IQ types are drug-adled opioid addicts. There is plenty of research on the mask and they work but nobody says they work 100%. When you make statements like yours you're just making a total and complete utter ass of yourself
Click to expand...

 
AProudLefty said:
I know what you said. The "fools, liars and ignorance" have been eliminated, leaving the part about arguments.

Me and T.A. Gardner laughing about the "butt masks" in the OP are not being fools, liars and being ignorant.

Next time follow the conversation, Prudy Boy.
Click to expand...

So after acting like a thread trolling Tard Boy, you admit you lack reading comprehension as well. I don't give a shit that you and Gardner had a laugh. Last time you made a stupid lie filled claim like that, Yakuda clearly stated you lied about you and him. You're a dishonest, unserious, thread trolling dumb fuck. Be less stupid and Dishonest Tart Boy.

tenor.gif
 
Truth Detector said:
So after acting like a thread trolling Tard Boy, you admit you lack reading comprehension as well. I don't give a shit that you and Gardner had a laugh. Last time you made a stupid lie filled claim like that, Yakuda clearly stated you lied about you and him. You're a dishonest, unserious, thread trolling dumb fuck. Be less stupid and Dishonest Tart Boy.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about Yakuda?

And why would you go apeshit when people have a laugh?

"Butt masks"? Come on you cannot be that retarded not to see how funny that is?

You truly are dumb. Go away.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Those who understand medical science understand. Good to see Harris take the high road and seek to protect her staff. Not every DC Swamprat is so concerned about protecting their staff and the American people.
Click to expand...
Protect her staff from what exactly. Has she tested positive?
 
ExpressLane said:
Protect her staff from what exactly. Has she tested positive?
Click to expand...

These mutts think the PCR test is accurate.

It's not.

Up to 90 percent of the people who receive a positive test are carrying so little virus that they probably aren’t contagious.

This is because testing used something called a PCR test. In this test, a test sample is run through a machine that amplifies any DNA particles found in it. Each time you run the sample through the machine you amplify the DNA a bit more.

•In the current PCR testing, they run that sample through 40 times.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times.

If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

• The standard for these tests is 30-35 cycles.

•By cycling to 40 times, it means we have positive infection counts that are about 10 times higher than they really are.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said

Epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told The Times that a proper cutoff would be somewhere between 30-35 cycles. That would mean the amount of viral DNA in the sample would have to be 100 to 1,000 times higher to generate a positive result.

So this is, let's go with the vernacular, part of the "hoax".

We've been fed data that infectious cases are currently at 6.04 million when, because of the way this test is being done, may actually only be a little over 600,000.

But it may be even lower:

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request.

In July, the lab identified 794 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

The virus is most definitely real. The actual case count ... not so much.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top