"PCR test could not differentiate between flu and sars1 as the teting could not detect the flu".
There's that SARS1 again. Why?
And all the original PCR test indicated was whether covid was present or not. The presence of influenza did not influence the result. The new tests can detect more than just covid.
Corrected typo from sars1 to sars2. Which may have caused confusion. Sentence should have read "So really, I should rephrase my original claim to say "PCR test could not differentiate between flu and sars2 as the teting could not detect the flu".
Eh? It's plain as day. The original test could not detect influenza. Only sars2.
Was it 'designed' to? Or 'supposed' to? Maybe not, maybe so. Kinda moot now. My implication was, how many people were tested who had fluish/cold ish/corona symptoms, tested negative or possibly threw the test and got a false positive or false negative/inconclusive but actually had a cold or influenza, and categorised as having covid anyway, as a precaution? Seeing as the PCR (the old version used in canada) can and does have an innaccurate rate of anywhere from 30-50% garbage results if you are trying to find rona on folk that don't even have it and just a sniffle.
Would trhat not skew covid stats, and cause undue concern in people, especially as those numbers are passed on to the dinosaur media, and you know how they love to doom and gloom everything.
You may not remember Bonnie Henry basically saying its a waste of time testing everyone showing up with no symptoms because you can get false negatives and then maybe get a positive in the same person the same day.
Eh? It's plain as day. The original test could not detect influenza. Only sars2.
Precisely. I'm glad we agree. Some mistaken people were spreading misinformation to the effect that the original could be confused by influenza.
the PCR (the old version used in canada) can and does have an innaccurate rate of anywhere from 30-50% garbage results
You probably want to supply some authoritative reference material for a statement like that. Some people would accuse you of spreading misinformation otherwise.
how many people were tested who...
I'm pretty sure the Internet will tell you how accurate it was if you ask.
Bonnie Henry basically saying
Yes. I believe the quote was something about 'The health officer underscored that testing stations are being overwhelmed'
"Overwhelmed". There's that word again.
You see, that's why vaccines are so valuable: they keep people out of the hospitals and ICUs, and maybe the facilities won't be overwhelmed.
There's that SARS1 again. Why?
And all the original PCR test indicated was whether covid was present or not. The presence of influenza did not influence the result. The new tests can detect more than just covid.
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/cdc-urges-test-for-both-covid19-flu-as-replacement-for-pcr-assay
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JCM.00938-20
So, CDC dir states 75% of deaths are from people who are seriously ill or have comorbidities.
Flipped around (reasonable to infer), she is implying that fit, healthy folks do not tend to die of corona or the resulting symptoms.
All the more reason to keep a good BMI, excercise, take your vitamins, vit D, don't smoke or drink like a fish.
Corrected typo from sars1 to sars2. Which may have caused confusion. Sentence should have read "So really, I should rephrase my original claim to say "PCR test could not differentiate between flu and sars2 as the teting could not detect the flu".
Still peddling misinformation I see. The superseded test returned positive if covid was found and negative if it wasn't. That is all.
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
Eh? It's plain as day. The original test could not detect influenza. Only sars2.
Was it 'designed' to? Or 'supposed' to? Maybe not, maybe so. Kinda moot now. My implication was, how many people were tested who had fluish/cold ish/corona symptoms, tested negative or possibly threw the test and got a false positive or false negative/inconclusive but actually had a cold or influenza, and categorised as having covid anyway, as a precaution? Seeing as the PCR (the old version used in canada) can and does have an innaccurate rate of anywhere from 30-50% garbage results if you are trying to find rona on folk that don't even have it and just a sniffle.
Would trhat not skew covid stats, and cause undue concern in people, especially as those numbers are passed on to the dinosaur media, and you know how they love to doom and gloom everything.
You may not remember Bonnie Henry basically saying its a waste of time testing everyone showing up with no symptoms because you can get false negatives and then maybe get a positive in the same person the same day.
Precisely. I'm glad we agree. Some mistaken people were spreading misinformation to the effect that the original could be confused by influenza.
You probably want to supply some authoritative reference material for a statement like that. Some people would accuse you of spreading misinformation otherwise.
I'm pretty sure the Internet will tell you how accurate it was if you ask.
Yes. I believe the quote was something about 'The health officer underscored that testing stations are being overwhelmed'
"Overwhelmed". There's that word again.
You see, that's why vaccines are so valuable: they keep people out of the hospitals and ICUs, and maybe the facilities won't be overwhelmed.