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.
"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.
No problem, here skip to 36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16Stdsi0Kw Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s Deputy Medical Health Officer, admits that there can be a 50% false positive error in PCR testing. She then bizarrely goes on to defend how important testing is. When asked about it, Premier Doug Ford talks in circles rather than give a straight answer.
Regarding: "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."
If these testing stations have been "overwhelmed", and this is the recent news after the BC gov decided to throw a bunch of taxpayer money at giving out thousands of test kits avail to the public (just around omicron coming out, odd coincidence).
Maybe testing stations are being overwhelmed. Okay. So a lot of people are choosing to wait for hours in a queue, in bitter freezing weather, to get a test to see if they are ill or not? When 9 out of 10 people are innoculated?
One is either not sick and wasting your and their time. Have a cold or mild flu and toughing out waiting in a queue to get a test that cant even detect cold/flu -but people may freak out at you anyway, thinking you have the rona.OR, you really ARE sick bad with kung flu (jabbed or not) and you must have the determination of Job standing there.
If the latter 2, then what the heck are these people there for? Take some days off work and stay away from others, if one is so concerned about spreading the, er, "love".
Is there any results of this 'overwhelmingness'? Tests vs "positive" results. Notwithstanding the 30-50& innacurate factor. "Cases" are shooting up apparently? But I thought we were completly jabbed? How can this be?
Wait a minute. Isn’t this test supposed to be highly accurate and reliable? How then would false positives overwhelm the medical system?
For some context:
(a) BC admits there is a 30% false negative rate.
(b) ON admits there is a 50% false positive rate.
And, BC CDC has no idea of the error rate. Quote-
" What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity).
These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens.
In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results.
CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate)."
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.
"maybe the facilities won't be overwhelmed."
You're going to need to provide some backup on that.
The system was overwhelmed before Covid
I forgot. The main stream media is lying to you and you aren't on any public health or hospital email lists. Sucks to be you.
Grasping At Straws 101, everyone.
"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.
No problem, here skip to 36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16Stdsi0Kw Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s Deputy Medical Health Officer, admits that there can be a 50% false positive error in PCR testing. She then bizarrely goes on to defend how important testing is. When asked about it, Premier Doug Ford talks in circles rather than give a straight answer.
Regarding: "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."
Here she is, skip to 22, saying PCR tests can give 30% false negatives: https://youtu.be/gCvrWo3Av5g
If these testing stations have been "overwhelmed", and this is the recent news after the BC gov decided to throw a bunch of taxpayer money at giving out thousands of test kits avail to the public (just around omicron coming out, odd coincidence).
Maybe testing stations are being overwhelmed. Okay. So a lot of people are choosing to wait for hours in a queue, in bitter freezing weather, to get a test to see if they are ill or not? When 9 out of 10 people are innoculated?
One is either not sick and wasting your and their time. Have a cold or mild flu and toughing out waiting in a queue to get a test that cant even detect cold/flu -but people may freak out at you anyway, thinking you have the rona.OR, you really ARE sick bad with kung flu (jabbed or not) and you must have the determination of Job standing there.
If the latter 2, then what the heck are these people there for? Take some days off work and stay away from others, if one is so concerned about spreading the, er, "love".
Is there any results of this 'overwhelmingness'? Tests vs "positive" results. Notwithstanding the 30-50& innacurate factor. "Cases" are shooting up apparently? But I thought we were completly jabbed? How can this be?
Wait a minute. Isn’t this test supposed to be highly accurate and reliable? How then would false positives overwhelm the medical system?
For some context: (a) BC admits there is a 30% false negative rate. (b) ON admits there is a 50% false positive rate.
And, BC CDC has no idea of the error rate. Quote-
" What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity).
These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens.
In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results.
CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia. . Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate)."
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf