Criteria for diagnosing positive COVID changing??

2,484 Views | 9 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by HotardAg07
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C19 Diagnostic Criteria Tightened by WHO

Quote:

PCR positive is no longer = Covid. You are not Covid now unless you get a second test to confirm it, and are presenting clinical symptoms.
Being symptom free means you DON'T have COVID, even with a positive test??

Is this accurate? Did the rules for positive diagnosis change that much? Yea, I know it's Red State, but would be surprised if they just flat made this up.
The Big12Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Use your own judgement by reading the actual WHO documents:

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 (Seems to have been released the 13th, not 20th, but the point about general timeline with change in administration remains)

The above document does not seem to change, but instead reiterate, the WHO guidance from September 2020 (Download the PDF at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2).

IVD - in vitro diagnostic device

IFU - Instructions for use

WHO seems to be reminding everyone to see follow both their own September instructions as well as the specific manufacturer instructions for the device in question.

All that being said, if you are someone that thinks politics rules everything you could still argue "WHO was ok with sloppy application of testing devices until now and suddenly wants to be tighter in it's guidance to make a particular party or individual look good". I wouldn't agree based on my interpretation of the documents which just seem to be reminded people of how to use the tests, but I'd listen to the argument and look for more proof.
bkag9824
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Big12Ag said:

Use your own judgement by reading the actual WHO documents:

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 (Seems to have been released the 13th, not 20th, but the point about general timeline with change in administration remains)

The above document does not seem to change, but instead reiterate, the WHO guidance from September 2020 (Download the PDF at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2).

IVD - in vitro diagnostic device

IFU - Instructions for use

WHO seems to be reminding everyone to see follow both their own September instructions as well as the specific manufacturer instructions for the device in question.

All that being said, if you are someone that thinks politics rules everything you could still argue "WHO was ok with sloppy application of testing devices until now and suddenly wants to be tighter in it's guidance to make a particular party or individual look good". I wouldn't agree based on my interpretation of the documents which just seem to be reminded people of how to use the tests, but I'd listen to the argument and look for more proof.
My employer regularly discusses proper use of tools, procedures, etc. in an effort to improve profitability, reliability and safety.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but has the WHO released any similar "reminders" prior to this one? If not, why not and why now?

If case counts are of extreme paramount and used as a metric for government intervention/response, you'd think the powers that be should/would want to ensure tests are both accurate and consistent.

Edit - clarity

Notacoronabro
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cases counts have always been a poor indicator. We've significantly ramped up testing, Ct cycles are not consistent, and there is liberal classification of multiple tests per user.

Continue to watch hospitalizations and deaths. Those can be fudged with less.
ShinerDunk93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This seems to be correct. This is just a reminder of WHO guidelines from Sept. Is the timing suspect? Will the CDC follow this?

Many aspects of the pandemic are accounting/book keeping policies and techniques. Makes tracking and comparisons difficult. For the record we have never considered a positive test a "case" with out further confirmation of symptoms or doctor evaluation when tracking an epidemic.
bkag9824
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ShinerDunk93 said:

For the record we have never considered a positive test a "case" with out further confirmation of symptoms or doctor evaluation when tracking an epidemic.
It's great that your company/practice does this.

Now the government needs to show the complete data set proving similar rigor applied to diagnosis and outcomes across the country.


Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Big12Ag said:

Use your own judgement by reading the actual WHO documents:

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 (Seems to have been released the 13th, not 20th, but the point about general timeline with change in administration remains)

The above document does not seem to change, but instead reiterate, the WHO guidance from September 2020 (Download the PDF at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2).

IVD - in vitro diagnostic device

IFU - Instructions for use

WHO seems to be reminding everyone to see follow both their own September instructions as well as the specific manufacturer instructions for the device in question.

All that being said, if you are someone that thinks politics rules everything you could still argue "WHO was ok with sloppy application of testing devices until now and suddenly wants to be tighter in it's guidance to make a particular party or individual look good". I wouldn't agree based on my interpretation of the documents which just seem to be reminded people of how to use the tests, but I'd listen to the argument and look for more proof.


Did the WHO mean to say that someone with no symptoms can't be diagnosed as having COVID? That's how the article interprets it. That seems to be a pretty big change.

The stance of "someone without symptoms being able to spread COVID" has changed a few times, but never have I seen anywhere that someone who tests positive but has no symptoms would NOT be considered as a positive case.
3rd Generation Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And as for numbers, my son's family has had two people test postive with symptoms. At least four other members, including my son have all the symptoms, know they were exposed, and see zero reason to go get a test. I think this might be the case in many families.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ignoring the politics involved this will eliminate a lot of false positive 'cases' and also let folks go back to work where sometimes a series of negative tests are required/specified as PCR.



I think this change was needed desperately, and should have been the policy once lateral flow tests were widely available, but will leave further opinions out as it's better for a politics board thread (which is there).

With this change, 100 million plus vaccine doses over the next 4-6 months, and of course the end of ILI/flu season in the northern hemisphere/US, much of the panic will subside this spring.
Keller6Ag91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
3rd Generation Ag said:

And as for numbers, my son's family has had two people test postive with symptoms. At least four other members, including my son have all the symptoms, know they were exposed, and see zero reason to go get a test. I think this might be the case in many families.


Smart. And I totally understand it. With all the contact tracing going on in schools, we would just quarantine our kids vs taking out 10 other kids fir 2 weeks.
Gig'Em and God Bless,

JB'91
HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WHO doesn't dictate policy for how the US records statistics. From everything I can tell, nothing has changed here. If you are still dubious follow the hospitalization data which is showing the same trends.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.