EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 300
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17514 Posts
On December 02 2020 16:03 Magic Powers wrote: There's a very recent discussion happening regarding the efficacy of PCR tests. I'm not qualified so I can't comment on it, and to avoid bias in either direction I also won't quote any parts that raised my interest. I strongly recommend reading the comments. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ thanks for posting. From your source. Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic. The Sars-1 from 2003 hit toronto pretty hard. According to my mom and grandma they used more than 2 primer matches. In fact, they required an "array" of primer matches. My grandma is retired and ran a medical lab for decades. My mom currently runs a medical lab and has done so for about 10 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089259/ For SARS-1 testing... These primers were synthesized and printed into a microarray with 12 ×12 spots. False positives were also a problem with Sars-1 in 2003. https://www.who.int/csr/sars/coronarecommendations/en/ As widespread distribution of PCR testing occurs its accuracy falls. The quality of the execution of the PCR test itself is declining. It is too expensive and no country can snap its fingers and demand every lab technologist work 100 hours per week to fit the demand. As a result, in Ontario Canada, you have unqualified people taking over portions of the testing procedure who do not know what they are doing and do not adhere to the rigorous testing standards. a PCR test is really fucking cool. Its quite amazing. However, it is very sensitive to flaws in testing procedure and requires top notch execution. They rolled it out fast and hard to meet ridiculously overblown promises made by government testing #s. For wide scale testing I think antigen testing is the way to go. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-antigen-tests-1.5761718 I've posted about antigen testing in the past. PCR testing is too complex and sensitive for instantaneous large scale distribution. PCR testing versus antigen testing in a wide scale mass distribution situation is an interesting topic of discussion. Once a vaccine is developed all these false positives won't matter and this will all get swept under the carpet. If you go through the details of what it takes to complete a successful PCR test you can tell its tough to do on a massive scale. There are prolly a decent percentage of false positives in Ontario, Canada coming from poorly executed PCR tests. I can't speak for elsewhere. | ||
|
Yurie
12087 Posts
On December 04 2020 01:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: thanks for posting. From your source. The Sars-1 from 2003 hit toronto pretty hard. According to my mom and grandma they used more than 2 primer matches. In fact, they required an "array" of primer matches. My grandma is retired and ran a medical lab for decades. My mom currently runs a medical lab and has done so for about 10 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089259/ For SARS-1 testing... False positives were also a problem with Sars-1 in 2003. https://www.who.int/csr/sars/coronarecommendations/en/ As widespread distribution of PCR testing occurs its accuracy falls. The quality of the execution of the PCR test itself is declining. It is too expensive and no country can snap its fingers and demand every lab technologist work 100 hours per week to fit the demand. As a result, in Ontario Canada, you have unqualified people taking over portions of the testing procedure who do not know what they are doing and do not adhere to the rigorous testing standards. a PCR test is really fucking cool. Its quite amazing. However, it is very sensitive to flaws in testing procedure and requires top notch execution. They rolled it out fast and hard to meet ridiculously overblown promises made by government testing #s. For wide scale testing I think antigen testing is the way to go. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-antigen-tests-1.5761718 I've posted about antigen testing in the past. PCR testing is too complex and sensitive for instantaneous large scale distribution. PCR testing versus antigen testing in a wide scale mass distribution situation is an interesting topic of discussion. Once a vaccine is developed all these false positives won't matter and this will all get swept under the carpet. If you go through the details of what it takes to complete a successful PCR test you can tell its tough to do on a massive scale. There are prolly a decent percentage of false positives in Ontario, Canada coming from poorly executed PCR tests. I can't speak for elsewhere. False positives is not a big problem compared to false negatives, it quarantines a person. Antigen tests for Covid has had a tendency to report false negatives, this allows movement of infected. Though perhaps over-testing could compensate for that. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On December 04 2020 02:11 Yurie wrote: False positives is not a big problem compared to false negatives, it quarantines a person. Antigen tests for Covid has had a tendency to report false negatives, this allows movement of infected. Though perhaps over-testing could compensate for that. It's a problem if the numbers are exaggerated (or downplayed) and policy follows the numbers. This is why it's important to know how accurate the tests actually are, because the data is used to determine infections and CFR. In some countries the CFR is 1% or less, in others it's over 5%. It's important to figure out why that discrepancy exists, there are a number of possible reasons. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On December 04 2020 00:54 JimmiC wrote: There is tons of studies on masks working, anyone who refutes this is simply wrong. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-simple-science-behind-why-masks-work https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask To whether the mandates work, they do, there is less info because it is new but it is still clear. I mean why would people think they don't? If you know masks work why would mandates work. The only possible answer is that people are not using them, and the big reason for that is misinformation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/wear-a-face-mask-but-act-as-if-it-does-not-work-covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAtqL-BRC0ARIsAF4K3WEx7uBYokVyrgidwBviIw_rEFxzo4rL5MUiWlOR5wFdyKRQLe3TL68aAmoWEALw_wcB https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 This is a conversation that repeats on this thread and every time someone claims there is no data or people don't know someone else posts tons of info that they do. And no one posts info that they don't work. But the reality is all these facts don't work on Feelings over facts people and they think, well numbers are still high so they must not work, instead of imagine how much higher they would be without masks. And boy I wish everyone would actually wear them and use them properly because then this would be under control and the economy would not be as damaged. All the non maskers that claim they are pro economy over healthcare are lying to you, they are personal comfort over the economy and healthcare. Or they ignorant and more than likely willfully ignorant. It took me one quick google search to find all the above info and there is 1000's more about it. This is not a question anymore and it is silly to talk like it is. I've read the links that support mask mandates. The conclusions are not causative but correlational. The findings can be explained with sampling or surviorship bias as well as other possible biases, and they also don't prove at all that the mask mandates are overall positive as such a conclusion is impossible from those findings due to a large number of selection biases. On a large scale there's no evidence that shows mask mandates are having an effect in either direction, good or bad. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On December 04 2020 02:58 JimmiC wrote: That is simply not true, what you are looking for is going to come in time, it just can't be here right now because of time and scale. But if you want to believe that it still makes sense to have them because there is now downside. And if economy is really your top concern than having something that Might help but certainly does not hurt is 100% a good choice. I strongly disagree with the idea that if something can't harm me, then I should be ok with it being mandatory. By that reasoning it could be made mandatory to hop around on one leg. Since we can alternate between each leg there's no possible harm that can come from that. I would not follow such a mandate. So the argument that it can't hurt is not enough for me. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On December 04 2020 03:35 Magic Powers wrote: I strongly disagree with the idea that if something can't harm me, then I should be ok with it being mandatory. By that reasoning it could be made mandatory to hop around on one leg. Since we can alternate between each leg there's no possible harm that can come from that. I would not follow such a mandate. So the argument that it can't hurt is not enough for me. Hopping on one leg is dangerous and absolutely can cause harm. Just puttin' that out there. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 03 2020 11:49 Magic Powers wrote: I said I didn't find conclusive evidence that the mask mandates did or didn't have an impact. Feel free to provide a study if one exists. And to the second paragraph, the experts aren't sure of what's true themselves. I posted a recent study that comes to the conclusion that PCR tests don't work properly. There's currently a debate going on that will hopefully reveal more. I also didn't say that we shouldn't use current information. We should use it, but our reasoning for dismissing claims to the contrary should not draw from dogmatic beliefs, no matter if those beliefs results out of available research or not. If someone rejects our evidence using valid reasoning then it's on us to disprove that reasoning. If we don't hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect from others then we're no better. If we fall back on "expert opinion" when valid evidence to the contrary has surfaced then we're not interested in learning but only interested in pushing a narrative. The danger is always that the information we have turns into dogma, and that must be avoided. There is conclusive evidence masks mandates help and that masks are effective outside of lab environments. It is not our fault you have done insufficient research. This has been studied and reported at length. When common knowledge and scientific consensus has moved on from this question and deemed it conclusive (my wife personally conducted studies on this topic), it is not on us to educate you. You are the one not doing your due diligence. When a simple google gives a CDC link like this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html it is hard to take you seriously when you pretend you've tried to find studies and can't. The study you posted was complete dogshit. There is nothing stopping someone from posting dogshit and fancying it up to look scientific and reputable. You're being fooled. Posting something doesn't mean it is true. There is no enlightenment in finding something that disagrees with hard physics of how PCR works. My background is in analytical chemistry, biophysics of viruses and my wife is a covid researcher. Let me tell you with complete confidence that the study you posted is bogus. You are just not quite understanding the idea of being skeptical of current information. It is always good to investigate, verify and whatnot, but that does not mean that every single "but what if" is valid. It takes hard, rigorous work to prove something like PCR is unreliable. The article you linked does what most similar disinformation attempts do. They talk about accepted science, do a decent job at somewhat describing a mechanism, then make a stupid link and pretend things aren't proven or accepted. This is ***not* a new dynamic. You're essentially posting garbage here and then trying to pretend it is "healthy skepticism". It isn't, you've been duped. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 04 2020 04:12 Starlightsun wrote: Yeah I find it kind of suspect when someone's message consistently adds up to "masks don't work, tests don't work, don't trust experts, economic restrictions kill more than the virus." Although Magic Powers has put more nuance than that into each individual point, taken altogether that is the picture that is coming across to me. Whether it is a genuine call for skepticism and truth, or a deliberate sowing of doubt and mistrust is hard to tell. His posts are hilariously similar to the methods being used in his giant wall of garbage text link he posted. Appear to be saying something meaningful or nuanced while actually just dumping garbage. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
Why do you guys keep saying that my argument is that masks don't work? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11837 Posts
Because that sounds like a pretty bad argument to me. Which might be why people assumed your argument was something else. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
If that number then jumps to 95% if you have enforcement, doesn't that reduce the number of people not wearing masks to 10% of what it was without a mandate? Yeah you're going to have the idiots and karens but you're still better off than where you started. It's pretty hard to see why a mask mandate doesn't work. | ||
|
arbiter_md
Moldova1219 Posts
1. Masks have not been proved to work. 2. If something is not proven, then it should not be forced on people. The reality is he doesn't like to wear a mask and doesn't want to say it directly. He wants his comfort. So, he is looking for ways to justify it scientifically. For that he needs to convince enough people that his theory is right, and the majority of medical advisors out there don't know what they are talking about. So, let's make him happy and tell him how we should throw away all the masks and move on with our happy lives! | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 04 2020 04:48 Magic Powers wrote: I never said masks don't work. I said mask mandates are unproven to work. Why do you guys keep saying that my argument is that masks don't work? Mask mandates don't work because people don't obey them in the US. Elsewhere they've proved pretty effective. The conclusion of a large sociological study earlier in the year was that mask wearing was one of the key contributors to lower rates of spreading and less severe cases. From earlier in the thread. I followed up on this study and the results weren't quite as dramatic after a couple months, but they were still something like 55% vs 20% growth rates. Here's a study where mask usage and covid was examined. They studied why deaths were so much lower in Asia than the US and concluded that masks were a large part of it. 95% mask usage dropped mortality growth from 62.1% per week to 15.8% per week. The statistical significance is extremely good: >99.9% chance of correlation. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5 It's not the preferred double blind type of scientific study, but the only ones of those we have right now are pretty mediocre/inconclusive (the one talked about a while back that was on a population with a super low rate of infection is the best I know of). Some updates - CDC has shortened the recommended quarantine from 14 days depending on local officials. It can now be lowered to 10 without a negative test, or 7 with a negative test. Local public health authorities determine and establish the quarantine options for their jurisdictions. CDC currently recommends a quarantine period of 14 days. However, based on local circumstances and resources, the following options to shorten quarantine are acceptable alternatives. Quarantine can end after Day 10 without testing and if no symptoms have been reported during daily monitoring. With this strategy, residual post-quarantine transmission risk is estimated to be about 1% with an upper limit of about 10%. When diagnostic testing resources are sufficient and available (see bullet 3, below), then quarantine can end after Day 7 if a diagnostic specimen tests negative and if no symptoms were reported during daily monitoring. The specimen may be collected and tested within 48 hours before the time of planned quarantine discontinuation (e.g., in anticipation of testing delays), but quarantine cannot be discontinued earlier than after Day 7. With this strategy, the residual post-quarantine transmission risk is estimated to be about 5% with an upper limit of about 12%. In both cases, additional criteria (e.g., continued symptom monitoring and masking through Day 14) must be met and are outlined in the full text. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/scientific-brief-options-to-reduce-quarantine.html | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 04 2020 04:48 Magic Powers wrote: I never said masks don't work. I said mask mandates are unproven to work. Why do you guys keep saying that my argument is that masks don't work? And then people said "yes, studies have shown mask mandates work" Then I easily googled a result from the CDC. At one point it just isn't a big deal if you aren't willing to accept this point. We can all live happy lives regardless of whether or not you accept the idea that mandates reduce the spread. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On December 04 2020 04:48 Magic Powers wrote: I never said masks don't work. I said mask mandates are unproven to work. Why do you guys keep saying that my argument is that masks don't work? There are plenty of examples were early implemented mask mandates combined with isolating infected early on stopped the first wave entirely. The best examples are east asian countries like Taiwan and Vietnam: Taiwan wins COVID-19 pandemic battle with face masks Mass masking and Vietnam’s COVID-19 success Strict mask mandates are definitely working, Europe and NA just failed miserably at implementing them properly.... | ||
| ||
