3 ms·

You might find this interesting, an article from 2007 about PCR tests being used to confirm a whooping cough epidemic at a hospital: https://archive.ph/ugiWQ h

You might find this interesting, an article from 2007 about PCR tests being used to confirm a whooping cough epidemic at a hospital: https://archive.ph/ugiWQ https://archive.ph/ugiWQ I wonder if the same mistakes are being repeated.

tripletao 5y ago
From the article: > These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. So this is about clinical use of an uncharacterized test. Why is that relevant to the test for SARS-CoV-2, which has probably now been run more times than any other PCR test in history, including on large populations with extremely low test positivity (e.g., most of Australia, <0.1%), which bounds the specificity (e.g., to >99.9%)? Seriously, engage with the evidence. There are still zero replies to my detailed explanation linked above. Did you read it? What did you think?
- theclap 5y ago
  You didn't read the article. You stopped reading right at that sentence didn't you?
  - tripletao 5y ago
    I read to the end of the article. They even developed a better (though still not perfect) PCR test that excluded most of the initial false positives! > Its scientists also did additional P.C.R. tests on samples from 116 of the 134 people who were thought to have whooping cough. Only one P.C.R. was positive, but other tests did not show that that person was infected with pertussis bacteria. It's absolutely possible to develop bad PCR tests, and that's why it's necessary to characterize them on large populations to determine their specificity and sensitivity. It seems the Dartmouth team didn't do that before using the test clinically, and that was their problem; but the SARS-CoV-2 tests are the most intensively-studied PCR tests in human history, and the evidence I've seen looks quite good. So again, did you read my detailed explanation? Do you understand it? If you're just looking to knowingly spread baseless doubt, there's far more effective places to do it. So why not engage with the actual science?
    - theclap 5y ago
      I did read your linked explanation, I did not get a chance to read your sources however but I will when I get a chance. You don't need to be so condescending. Are you in the medical field by chance? Anyhow my concerns around the virus aren't so much with the tests but with the lack of data on the long term effects of the new vaccines. Since I am not in an elderly age group, I am reluctant to take the vaccine without at least waiting a few years to observe if there are any other effects.
      - tripletao 5y ago
        Please do read the sources. My background is math/CS, though I've done statistical work for life sciences. Evidence like the excess mortality requires zero medical knowledge though, just the ability to count deaths and compare that count year over year. Whatever the PCR test is doing, PCR-confirmed COVID deaths track reasonably well with excess deaths in regions hard enough hit for the excess deaths to be statistically distinguishable: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361 In fact excess mortality usually exceeds COVID deaths, suggesting there are more false negative PCR tests (at least on dead/dying people) than false positive. The vaccine is an entirely different topic. There's certainly a higher risk that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will have unforeseen long-term effects than for other, longer-studied vaccines; but there's also a higher risk that SARS-CoV-2 itself will have unforeseen long-term effects than for other, longer-studied diseases. I'm not elderly, but I've placed my bet on the vaccine. I don't mean to be condescending. I'm just frustrated that I've spent considerable time explaining why I believe the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is almost always accurate, and received zero engagement with any of that. The evidence is there for anyone willing to invest the effort to understand it.

tripletao 5y ago

From the article: > These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. So this is about clinical use of an uncharacterized test. Why is that relevant to the test for SARS-CoV-2, which has probably now been run more times than any other PCR test in history, including on large populations with extremely low test positivity (e.g., most of Australia, <0.1%), which bounds the specificity (e.g., to >99.9%)? Seriously, engage with the evidence. There are still zero replies to my detailed explanation linked above. Did you read it? What did you think?

theclap 5y ago
You didn't read the article. You stopped reading right at that sentence didn't you?
- tripletao 5y ago
  I read to the end of the article. They even developed a better (though still not perfect) PCR test that excluded most of the initial false positives! > Its scientists also did additional P.C.R. tests on samples from 116 of the 134 people who were thought to have whooping cough. Only one P.C.R. was positive, but other tests did not show that that person was infected with pertussis bacteria. It's absolutely possible to develop bad PCR tests, and that's why it's necessary to characterize them on large populations to determine their specificity and sensitivity. It seems the Dartmouth team didn't do that before using the test clinically, and that was their problem; but the SARS-CoV-2 tests are the most intensively-studied PCR tests in human history, and the evidence I've seen looks quite good. So again, did you read my detailed explanation? Do you understand it? If you're just looking to knowingly spread baseless doubt, there's far more effective places to do it. So why not engage with the actual science?
  - theclap 5y ago
    I did read your linked explanation, I did not get a chance to read your sources however but I will when I get a chance. You don't need to be so condescending. Are you in the medical field by chance? Anyhow my concerns around the virus aren't so much with the tests but with the lack of data on the long term effects of the new vaccines. Since I am not in an elderly age group, I am reluctant to take the vaccine without at least waiting a few years to observe if there are any other effects.
    - tripletao 5y ago
      Please do read the sources. My background is math/CS, though I've done statistical work for life sciences. Evidence like the excess mortality requires zero medical knowledge though, just the ability to count deaths and compare that count year over year. Whatever the PCR test is doing, PCR-confirmed COVID deaths track reasonably well with excess deaths in regions hard enough hit for the excess deaths to be statistically distinguishable: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361 In fact excess mortality usually exceeds COVID deaths, suggesting there are more false negative PCR tests (at least on dead/dying people) than false positive. The vaccine is an entirely different topic. There's certainly a higher risk that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will have unforeseen long-term effects than for other, longer-studied vaccines; but there's also a higher risk that SARS-CoV-2 itself will have unforeseen long-term effects than for other, longer-studied diseases. I'm not elderly, but I've placed my bet on the vaccine. I don't mean to be condescending. I'm just frustrated that I've spent considerable time explaining why I believe the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is almost always accurate, and received zero engagement with any of that. The evidence is there for anyone willing to invest the effort to understand it.