4 ms·

We don't know if these antibody tests are specific for covid-19 only or in fact for any coronavirus. We don't know if they randomly test positive either due to

by sjg007 7y ago

We don't know if these antibody tests are specific for covid-19 only or in fact for any coronavirus. We don't know if they randomly test positive either due to something else. There are a lot of unknowns. These antibody tests are not FDA approved.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
We lost a month at the beginning of this pandemic waiting for FDA approval of the tests confirming coronavirus was spreading in the US. I am unconvinced that this approval offered any value at all, and we can't afford to lose another month waiting to see how far it's spread.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Well then you are making two mistakes.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Your statement amounts to "we have to do something. This is something. Therefore we have to do it." Doing the wrong thing can be extremely dangerous in this situation. Consciously choosing to wait until you have greater certainty that the action taken is correct isn't the same as inaction, not when the downside risks of getting it wrong are so high.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I disagree that theorizing and gathering data can be extremely dangerous in this situation. If we're worried the Stanford study is flawed, the right response is to urgently do more studies, not sit on our hands waiting for some ponderous FDA approval process.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      There's a certain limited amount of qualified research capacity representing a bottleneck. So, urgently doing more studies to refute one that has flaws and bias by the author isn't the right type of action to take if it will take resources from other, more productive endeavors. Theorizing and gathering data is fine; going on to write a WSJ op-ed pushing it in a way you hope will influence policy goes a far step beyond proper scientific research protocols.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        Standard scientific research protocols are heavily biased towards inaction. We can't afford that bias in the middle of a global emergency; it matters a lot if necessary action gets delayed for a month or even a week. Imagine how bad things would have gotten if we had made the same demands a month ago - if we had refused to institute social distancing until randomized controlled trials proved it helped for this disease.
        ineedasername 7y ago
        There was no need to delay social distancing on account scientific uncertainty over the practice. We already knew social distancing was an effective method of preventing spread. Heck, we've known it since the 1918 spanish flu, since quarantines themselves begam. (and still, it was delayed, still is delayed in some places) The point is that there is a resource bottleneck on "action". There are limited resources. You qualified your own statement as necessary action. How do you know what is necessary? Options must be weighed, the most promising chosen, as many, but not all paths can be pursued. I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying that we can't do everything. And then, yes, in areas of great uncertainty, where wrong action can cause more harm than choosing to wait, then we should not take action merely for the sake of "we can't do nothing!!!" emotional response to the crisis.
    - postingawayonhn 7y ago
      There's no point in continuing to conduct studies of the methodology and/or equipment is flawed.
mrfusion 7y ago
Do you have a source on that? I was under the impression these tests were very specific.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  The linked article is the source. The analysis in the linked article placed the specificity within a range of "they could all be false positives" to "they might mostly be legitimate results".
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    I meant about other corona viruses leading to false positives. I hadn’t heard about that.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      I've seen in mentioned in a few articles criticizing unapproved tests, but it was more about the potential for this than actual testing. I think one was on CNN, but a quick search doesn't turn it up. There's just too much noise in the new-sphere right now to easily find a specific article from a week or two ago if you don't remember something ultra specific about it. You get, um, lots of false positives in your search results ;)
robocat 7y ago
Your statement is misleading. They validate the antibody tests against blood collected before the outbreak. If the tests detect other corona viruses, they should get positive tests from blood that existed before Sars2. Yes there are still unknowns, that’s the point of is science. FDA approval is irrelevant.
- nodamage 7y ago
  The manual for the test used specifically warns that other coronaviruses may lead to a positive test result. > Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E. https://imgcdn.mckesson.com/CumulusWeb/Click_and_learn/Premier_Biotech_COVID19_Package_Insert.pdf https://imgcdn.mckesson.com/CumulusWeb/Click_and_learn/Premi...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by sjg007 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

We lost a month at the beginning of this pandemic waiting for FDA approval of the tests confirming coronavirus was spreading in the US. I am unconvinced that this approval offered any value at all, and we can't afford to lose another month waiting to see how far it's spread.

sjg007 7y ago
Well then you are making two mistakes.
ineedasername 7y ago
Your statement amounts to "we have to do something. This is something. Therefore we have to do it." Doing the wrong thing can be extremely dangerous in this situation. Consciously choosing to wait until you have greater certainty that the action taken is correct isn't the same as inaction, not when the downside risks of getting it wrong are so high.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I disagree that theorizing and gathering data can be extremely dangerous in this situation. If we're worried the Stanford study is flawed, the right response is to urgently do more studies, not sit on our hands waiting for some ponderous FDA approval process.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    There's a certain limited amount of qualified research capacity representing a bottleneck. So, urgently doing more studies to refute one that has flaws and bias by the author isn't the right type of action to take if it will take resources from other, more productive endeavors. Theorizing and gathering data is fine; going on to write a WSJ op-ed pushing it in a way you hope will influence policy goes a far step beyond proper scientific research protocols.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Standard scientific research protocols are heavily biased towards inaction. We can't afford that bias in the middle of a global emergency; it matters a lot if necessary action gets delayed for a month or even a week. Imagine how bad things would have gotten if we had made the same demands a month ago - if we had refused to institute social distancing until randomized controlled trials proved it helped for this disease.
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        There was no need to delay social distancing on account scientific uncertainty over the practice. We already knew social distancing was an effective method of preventing spread. Heck, we've known it since the 1918 spanish flu, since quarantines themselves begam. (and still, it was delayed, still is delayed in some places) The point is that there is a resource bottleneck on "action". There are limited resources. You qualified your own statement as necessary action. How do you know what is necessary? Options must be weighed, the most promising chosen, as many, but not all paths can be pursued. I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying that we can't do everything. And then, yes, in areas of great uncertainty, where wrong action can cause more harm than choosing to wait, then we should not take action merely for the sake of "we can't do nothing!!!" emotional response to the crisis.
  - postingawayonhn 7y ago
    There's no point in continuing to conduct studies of the methodology and/or equipment is flawed.

mrfusion 7y ago

Do you have a source on that? I was under the impression these tests were very specific.

ineedasername 7y ago
The linked article is the source. The analysis in the linked article placed the specificity within a range of "they could all be false positives" to "they might mostly be legitimate results".
- mrfusion 7y ago
  I meant about other corona viruses leading to false positives. I hadn’t heard about that.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    I've seen in mentioned in a few articles criticizing unapproved tests, but it was more about the potential for this than actual testing. I think one was on CNN, but a quick search doesn't turn it up. There's just too much noise in the new-sphere right now to easily find a specific article from a week or two ago if you don't remember something ultra specific about it. You get, um, lots of false positives in your search results ;)

robocat 7y ago

Your statement is misleading. They validate the antibody tests against blood collected before the outbreak. If the tests detect other corona viruses, they should get positive tests from blood that existed before Sars2. Yes there are still unknowns, that’s the point of is science. FDA approval is irrelevant.

nodamage 7y ago
The manual for the test used specifically warns that other coronaviruses may lead to a positive test result. > Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E. https://imgcdn.mckesson.com/CumulusWeb/Click_and_learn/Premier_Biotech_COVID19_Package_Insert.pdf https://imgcdn.mckesson.com/CumulusWeb/Click_and_learn/Premi...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]