I saw where the CDC Director was on tv this morning and said the PCR test was unreliable because it can detect Covid 12 weeks after infection due to the amplification threshold. I remember some doctors saying a year and half ago that anything over 17 cycles is worthless. In the USA, we use 35 cycles. The WHO recommends 40 to 45 cycles. At that many amplifications you are just picking up the presence of any virus. The CDC has also appears to have acknowledged the lack of some PCR testing to distinguish the flu from Covid.

Think about how many man hours/days/years have been lost and now we say, "oh well, we wrong." We also missed on the 14 day quarantine, surface transmission of the virus, 4% IFR, cloth masks, outdoor masking, vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection, children are at risk, lockdowns will stop the virus, and on and on. All of these errors were on the side of fear and imposing more restrictions. Coincidence?

Somewhat good points, but you're not allowing any grace to be given to decision makers who have to make decisions before all of the data is in. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Furthermore, "vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection" is all based on testing against the alpha variant. At the time, they readily acknowledged that those numbers might not hold up to new variants.

1) that doesn't make the test unreliable. It makes it very sensitive.

2) the cdc has been saying for a year that you shouldn't test after you've recovered because it can come up positive for a long time.

Jabin said:

---

Somewhat good points, but you're not allowing any grace to be given to decision makers who have to make decisions before all of the data is in. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Furthermore, "vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection" is all based on testing against the alpha variant. At the time, they readily acknowledged that those numbers might not hold up to new variants.

---

I would contend that on most of those issues, sufficient data was available at the time or shortly thereafter to correct course, but a stubborn unwillingness to admit error and give up some control prevented doing so.

Quote:

---

Think about how many man hours/days/years have been lost and now we say, "oh well, we wrong." We also missed on the 14 day quarantine, surface transmission of the virus, 4% IFR, cloth masks, outdoor masking, vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection, children are at risk, lockdowns will stop the virus, and on and on. All of these errors were on the side of fear and imposing more restrictions. Coincidence?

---

This is a way too simple of a framing.

Weeks/days/hours were not lost because of the standards of the PRC test. They were lost because employers realized the litigation, bad press, etc were all too great to even consider given the facts at hand during the fist year of the Pandemic.

You would have had to have been a complete sociopath to order your entire staff back to work at the height of the first several waves because of your unwavering foresight that PRC tests might be too sensitive.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Think about how many man hours/days/years have been lost and now we say, "oh well, we wrong." We also missed on the 14 day quarantine, surface transmission of the virus, 4% IFR, cloth masks, outdoor masking, vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection, children are at risk, lockdowns will stop the virus, and on and on. All of these errors were on the side of fear and imposing more restrictions. Coincidence?

---

This is a way too simple of a framing.

Weeks/days/hours were not lost because of the standards of the PRC test. They were lost because employers realized the litigation, bad press, etc were all too great to even consider given the facts at hand during the fist year of the Pandemic.

You would have had to have been a complete sociopath to order your entire staff back to work at the height of the first several waves because of your unwavering foresight that PRC tests might be too sensitive.

---

The CDC guidance to employers and schools required a negative test to shorten quarantines which were inexplicably 14 days for almost a year. My point is that the governmental officials who were giving guidance to employers did not follow the science as it was understood at that time. We knew PCR testing was unreliable. We knew that infected persons could not transmit the virus outside 10 days. Yet, the government advised the most restrictive means rather than the least restrictive means. This happened in case after case. We knew cloth masks did not prevent the spread of the virus very early on. Yet, the CDC encouraged people to wear cloth masks. The examples are endless.

NicosMachine said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Think about how many man hours/days/years have been lost and now we say, "oh well, we wrong." We also missed on the 14 day quarantine, surface transmission of the virus, 4% IFR, cloth masks, outdoor masking, vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection, children are at risk, lockdowns will stop the virus, and on and on. All of these errors were on the side of fear and imposing more restrictions. Coincidence?

---

This is a way too simple of a framing.

Weeks/days/hours were not lost because of the standards of the PRC test. They were lost because employers realized the litigation, bad press, etc were all too great to even consider given the facts at hand during the fist year of the Pandemic.

You would have had to have been a complete sociopath to order your entire staff back to work at the height of the first several waves because of your unwavering foresight that PRC tests might be too sensitive.

---

The CDC guidance to employers and schools required a negative test to shorten quarantines which were inexplicably 14 days for almost a year. My point is that the governmental officials who were giving guidance to employers did not follow the science as it was understood at that time. We knew PCR testing was unreliable. We knew that infected persons could not transmit the virus outside 10 days. Yet, the government advised the most restrictive means rather than the least restrictive means. This happened in case after case. We knew cloth masks did not prevent the spread of the virus very early on. Yet, the CDC encouraged people to wear cloth masks. The examples are endless.

---

Research this --> "cdc press release regarding pcr testing". You can read the CDC press release regarding their feelings about the efficacy of PCR testing. Date of press release: JULY 21, 2021.

Why was the PCR test procedure maintained through 12/31/2021? Why was it used for all the reasons set out above? Why was it used during last flu season when it could not differentiate between COVID and influenza?

buffalo chip said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Think about how many man hours/days/years have been lost and now we say, "oh well, we wrong." We also missed on the 14 day quarantine, surface transmission of the virus, 4% IFR, cloth masks, outdoor masking, vaccines preventing transmission, vaccines 96% effective at preventing infection, children are at risk, lockdowns will stop the virus, and on and on. All of these errors were on the side of fear and imposing more restrictions. Coincidence?

---

This is a way too simple of a framing.

Weeks/days/hours were not lost because of the standards of the PRC test. They were lost because employers realized the litigation, bad press, etc were all too great to even consider given the facts at hand during the fist year of the Pandemic.

You would have had to have been a complete sociopath to order your entire staff back to work at the height of the first several waves because of your unwavering foresight that PRC tests might be too sensitive.

---

The CDC guidance to employers and schools required a negative test to shorten quarantines which were inexplicably 14 days for almost a year. My point is that the governmental officials who were giving guidance to employers did not follow the science as it was understood at that time. We knew PCR testing was unreliable. We knew that infected persons could not transmit the virus outside 10 days. Yet, the government advised the most restrictive means rather than the least restrictive means. This happened in case after case. We knew cloth masks did not prevent the spread of the virus very early on. Yet, the CDC encouraged people to wear cloth masks. The examples are endless.

---

Research this --> "cdc press release regarding pcr testing". You can read the CDC press release regarding their feelings about the efficacy of PCR testing. Date of press release: JULY 21, 2021.

Why was the PCR test procedure maintained through 12/31/2021? Why was it used for all the reasons set out above? Why was it used during last flu season when it could not differentiate between COVID and influenza?

---

I actually saw that this morning. The PCRs are only being used under emergency authorization until 12/31/2021. The release seems to acknowledge the test's inability to distinguish between Covid and the flu. Therein lies the answer to the question "why were there so few flu cases last year"?

'CDC admits that CDC is unreliable' may have been a better headline.

The PCRs could always tell the difference between flu and covid. You guys are misinterpreting what is being said in that July press release.

The PCR test that the CDC developed did not cross react with any influenza viruses. Here's the emergency use authorization from the FDA in Feb 2020 (table on page 45).

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Neither could it indicate if influenza was present. The new test kit can test for both the sars cov 2 and influenza viruses.

It's about to be 2022 and we are still discussing whether the PCR tests can distinguish between covid and the flu...goodness gracious.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/pcr-test-recall-can-the-test-tell-the-difference-between-covid-19-and-the-flu

Quote:

---

Did previous PCR tests confuse COVID-19 cases for influenza cases?

Not at all. "The reported numbers were based on highly accurate laboratory tests," says Dr. Broadhurst. "The original test could detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 with very high specificity," meaning the test does its job very well.

A PCR test is an excellent identifier of COVID-19 cases, because of something called specificity. Basically, specificity means that the test is designed to only detect one type of virus. Dr. Broadhurst says, "The PCR test is validated against many different coronaviruses and common respiratory viruses, including influenza so that it would not give false-positive results." Meaning, researchers subjected the test to many different samples to see if it would give the wrong result. It correctly identified SARS-CoV-2 out of all of these samples.

So why did the CDC recall the PCR test?
The CDC is choosing to use a multiplexed PCR test rather than the original PCR test to save time. All PCR tests give either a positive or negative result for each virus it detects. For SARS-CoV-2:

• Positive means the test found SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19
• Negative means you likely don't have COVID-19 but you may have influenza or another coronavirus. So you'd have to get a second test to see if it's something else

But a multiplexed test can determine both viruses at the same time, saving the patient an uncomfortable nasal swab.

Which is a more accurate test for detecting COVID-19 PCR or antigen?
PCR tests are more accurate than antigen tests. "PCR tests are the gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2," says Dr. Broadhurst. "It is the most accurate testing modality that we have. And now many PCR tests can detect both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza at the same time."

---

Some of this is bordering on deliberate misreading.

NicosMachine said:

---

Not according to the FDA and CDC who have stated:

• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

---

Because it could indicate presence of RNA fro from a recent or former infection that is no longer infectious and because other things can also cause Covid symptoms.

Quote:

---

• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

---

Because it doesn't test for them.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Some of this is bordering on deliberate misreading.

NicosMachine said:

---

Not according to the FDA and CDC who have stated:

• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

---

Because it could indicate presence of RNA fro from a recent or former infection that is no longer infectious and because other things can also cause Covid symptoms.

Quote:

---

• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

---

Because it doesn't test for them.

---

That's kind of this guy's MO. Deliberately misinterpret all information to further the conspiracy.

All across the world the flu basically disappeared last year and people are so entrenched on arguing that social distancing et al don't work that it must be some giant conspiracy that every medical institution in the world was part of. Maybe an approach more rooted in reality would be to discuss whether or not social distancing is worth it. My argument has always been pre-vaccine it was and post vaccine it isn't.

Just throwing out there that early indications are that this is a more active flu season than average so far which kind of disproves the whole "viral interference theory" that some people were peddling to try to not acknowledge the impact of social distancing on viral transmission. Again the question isn't whether it has an effect- it's whether social distancing is worth it.