Posted on 05/28/2020 4:19:54 AM PDT by RaceBannon
So true, what you said below:
** I don’t understand this obsession with trying to determine if a person has or hasn’t contracted the corona virus.
The politicians, medical “experts” and the media have created such a mass hysteria over this corona virus that everyone is focused on it 100% of the time instead on other things that make up our lives.
If you’re not sick, then why worry about it? And if you are sick, take care of yourself and recover. For those that can’t do these things, apparently their time on this earth is up. **
To me it’s obvious that there is an enormous political effort to keep the - before March - cases unreported, thus maintain a higher death rate and revel in “spikes.”
The California population had it around Chinese New Year - all cases not in the number.
I had it along with my family and at least 10 people I know - none of us are in the number.
The CDC is unreliable and not acting in citizen’s best interests.
I’m no “expert” but I’m just sayin’....
ecUse it is not different than any other virus on the face of the earth.
Try again. Because it is no different than any other virus on the face of the earth
Politics,
the difference is politics......
To all these organizations like CDC, WHO...you’re just a number and nothing more. Follow the money.
Doctor Jim posted:
A paper is being published in Cell that claims that 34% of healthy non-COVID people carry memory T-cells that transform in the presence of SARS Co V 2 antigens.
I asked about how this could be a possible reality.
A couple of knowledgeable/nice freepers said that we could have the antibodies from our previous Corona infections, that were so minor we didn’t notice them. Or they came from our ancestral DNA.
Of course, that may have changed this week.
So what they’re saying is the odds are almost as good as saying “heads says I have the antibodies” and flipping a coin?
Even better its free and a lot quicker.
What a mess...
Let’s say you have 1% positive for real in a population.
A thousand people take the test. If it is 95% accurate, then it is 5% inaccurate (false positive). 5% of 1,000 is 50 people who test false positive.
The real positives are 10 people. The false test positives are 50 people.
See how every a very good test can have more false positives than real ones? It can’t be helped. Tests are not perfect.
The way the MSM and CDC worded it made it sound awful, but it’s not.
It’s just spin.
Do math before you freak out.
Even the new-improved Abbott and Roche FDA-approved antibody tests?
I smell a RAT here!!!! Perhaps the CDC doesn’t want anyone to know that they have recovered from the virus and are presumptively immune! They may want continuing social control instead!!!!
I don’t know how much the CDC is contradicting itself versus the various news sources churning up stories and promulgating various ‘slants’ of information to keep the public alarmed and confused.
The CDC has completely screwed the pooch; antibody tests will show this a high degree of certainty. Of course they are going to say that the tests are not accurate.
What they are really saying is that theoretically if you have a test with 99% accuracy because of a 1% false positive rate and a population with only 1 percent infected, that approximately half the positives might be false. The media screwed up the reporting of this... probably on purpose. It is nothing but wordsmithing. 99% accurate is 99% accurate not 50% accurate.
Lol
I agree that the concept of herd immunity may be inoperable in the case of this virus.
I don’t believe ‘herd immunity’ was achieved anywhere with the similar SARS-CoV-1. Basically, no one knows where it went. One thought is that it ‘fizzled’, that is, it just lost its virulence, due to deleterious mutations. https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-study-revealing-covid-19-mutations-weakening
This leads to a very counterintuitive hypothesis. The way to defeat the virus is to have as many infections as possible in the shortest amount of time. As an RNA-based virus, it has no checks against faulty reproduction. And the virus can only reproduce by infection of cells. So, the more infections, the more negatve mutations, and the more mutations the faster the virus population is denatured.
If this is true, the worst possible thing to do is to slow the rate of infection, yet another reason that the lockdowns were a colossal blunder. As soon as it was determined that the the virus was minimally lethal to those less than 60 years and that the hospitals were in no danger of overcapacity, the society should have opened fully, the elderly protected, and the epidemic treated like the flu.
And if one looks at the trajectories of the disease in heavily infected states one sees that the downside after the crisis has been far steeper than in those states where the lockdowns were ‘successful’ in flattening the curve. In the latter group the norm is a fairly steep rise in cases, followed by an agonizingly slow decline.
The fda changed the definition of pos covid rna testing from at. Least 2 targets to only 1. 1 of the targets is simply not specific to covid 19. If that was your pos, then of course you wouldn’t have antibodies.
Multiple targets are standard in molecular because there is a high false pos rrate.
Gen 1 antibody tests are usually fraught with problems due to the uniqueness of immune responses, which are used to develop them.
it doesn’t mean the test has a 50% false positive rate.
If the test yields a false positive 5% of the time, in a population with 5% actual frequency, then it would mean that half of the folks testing positive wouldn’t actually have the disease. If the actual frequency were 2%, then the false positives would be over 70% of those getting positive results.
The first papers showing high detection rates without false positives were done under specific conditions with fewer than 10 examples.
Even if the tests themselves were perfectly accurate, there are always potential issues with executing the tests which could result in false positives, such as environmental contamination.
One other thing, is that the early papers on several of these tests showed that about 70% of the time, the antibody test would test positive on folks that had not come down with symptoms yet (4-10 days after infection), so a positive result would not mean they were immune or non-infectious even if recovery meant 100% immunity.
This was my first initial thought too. You are a very smart person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.