7 ms·

The submitted postimg.cc screenshot had the following cdc.gov link [0], which appears to be flagged as false information. The following text was on that cdc pag

The submitted postimg.cc screenshot had the following cdc.gov link [0], which appears to be flagged as false information. The following text was on that cdc page: > After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives. > Visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods. For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page. > In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing. I'm personally not sure what to make of all this, the cdc link doesn't seem controversial, and perhaps flagging this as false information was done in error? But screen shots are lame so I figured I'd repost as a link and the text for convenience. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert...

jtbayly 5y ago
I assume it has been claimed on FB that this is proof that the flu didn't disappear but just got misdiagnosed as Covid, and/or that the Covid tests results couldn't be trusted at all, hence they have been withdrawn.
- belltaco 5y ago
  That's exactly what happened in right wing circles, I saw it on Twitter and Reddit too.
- manofmanysmiles 5y ago
  How should this be interpreted? Isn’t implying that the test can’t tell the difference between flu and covid? If that’s true, then, how can we be sure that flu hasn’t been misdiagnosed? What percentage of Covid cases were classified using PCR tests?
  - unanswered 5y ago
    > If that’s true, then, how can we be sure that flu hasn’t been misdiagnosed? Because I haven't seen anything on Facebook, or self-censoring HN for that matter, validating those claims. So they must be but only false but really out-there wacky conspiracy theories.
  - 13years 5y ago
    Yes, it does state that. However, there is the word 'and' between detection and differentiation. The original could not detect, so therefore differentiation is a moot point. Also, the test for flu was a separate test. So it would have had no effect on the lower flu incidence assuming we didn't test for flu at a lesser rate.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      >assuming we didn't test for flu at a lesser rate. Do we have any numbers on this? I would imagine a lot of people who went to the doctor or whoever complaining of flu like symptoms would have been tested for covid.
      - jtbayly 5y ago
        Yes. We have figures for it. In 2017-18, there were 1.21M flu tests over the course of 33 weeks. In 2020-21 there were 1.11M flu tests over 33 weeks. Results: Essentially a 0% positive test rate vs a peak of over 25%. A peak of about 125 cases vs 20,000 cases. 1: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54973 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54973 2: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2020-2021/data/whoAllregt_cl28.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2020-2021/data/...
cbsmith 5y ago
Context is king. I can easily imagine this content being used to present false narratives. This is the underlying problem we're dealing with.
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  > This is the underlying problem we're dealing with. What's the underlying problem? How are we dealing with it? As someone who does not and has never had a facebook account, I have very little context to understand what you are talking about.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    someone on facebook: "SEE! THE CDC/FDA/CIA/IRS HAS BEEN LYING TO US ALL ALONG! THEIR TEST FOR THE VIRUS WAS RIGGED! NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO HIDE THAT BY TELLING EVERYONE TO USE A DIFFERENT TEST! DON'T BE A SHEEP, KNOW TEH TURTH AND SET YOURSELF FREE!" and then cites this link from the CDC as "context"
    - acdha 5y ago
      Anyone flagging this because they think it's an exaggeration, well, I envy you not having direct counterexamples in your immediate family. Paul is almost pitch-perfect explaining posts which real people make in all seriousness.
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        I don't think it's an exaggeration, and I wouldn't flag it, but I worry about the attitude. Officials are telling the truth about the danger of the coronavirus, but sometimes they do lie! We can't afford to cultivate an attitude that only raving lunatics accuse government agencies of lying.
        acdha 5y ago
        No, but I think it’s important to do that by relying on reason and evidence. Anyone known to repeat lies is unlikely to be right about deep secrets, just as the Snowden leak didn’t validate the people convinced that the government was reading your emails on behalf of the Trilateral Commission and aliens in Area 51.
notatoad 5y ago
i think the problem is that facebook doesn't actually fact-check anything. they abdicate that responsibility to third parties that they designate as "fact checkers", and designated fact checkers include some organizations who may not have an entirely firm grasp on what's true.
kahirsch 5y ago
People were spreading misinformation about the link. Just to be clear, there is no recall. The test is not defective. The test can be used through the end of the year. The CDC recommends using tests that can detect flu as well as COVID. The current PCR test from the CDC does not detect flu at all, or other coronaviruses. The test is very specific. See pages 40 on in the Instructions for Use[1] if you are interested. The test sequences were compared (by computer) to hundreds of thousands of genomes of flu, the human genome, and other organisms, as well as tested on physical specimens. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download#page=41 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download#page=41 Here is a sample of messages that were shared on Reddit: > The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED. The FRAUDULENT PCR Test has finally been ruled a Class I Recall. This is the most serious type of recall. All measurements based on PCR Testing should come to an end ASAP: > CDC retracts PCR test as it can't differentiate between COVID and the flu. It was all a Lie. > CDC pulls PCR tests because they can’t distinguish Covid from the flu. We finally caught the SOBs who have lied to us about the coronavirus numbers the last year. > The Pandemic narrative is unravelling... The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED. It is a Class I recall. The most serious type of recall. Too many false POSITIVES. This is the test that started the pandemic! > CDC to Withdraw Emergency Use Authorization for PCR Test Because It Cannot Distinguish Between SARS-CoV-2 and the Flu. > Watch the panicked minority bombard the comments with establishment talking points to try and refute this tweet.. PCR is being rescinded as a test, vaccinated people are filling hospitals, and our government officials are still urging us to get tested using PCR and get jabbed with the Covid vaccines. Alrighty then.
- Terretta 5y ago
  This was beautiful, reading the actual text first, and only then the hot takes. Thanks for that collection.
- dathinab 5y ago
  There are people which distribute false information which use extreamly clever highly manipulative methods which more often then not show a clear understanding of the matter in question. And I feel that it's a degree of understanding of both the topic and method about how to subtitle manipulate people that I think they themself should be clearly aware about them spreading false information. One method often used is to take some "official" article, paper, etc. which is not targeting a general-public audience but a audience of people with specialized knowledge and then twist what it supposedly says and spread it to people which in general do not have this specialized knowledge but where they know that with the given combination of pre-feed misinformation and non-understanding of the content and complex language/terminology their targets will see it as proof for the false information. Even if it might proof the exact opposite. Examples include: - this link - a case where two very different statistics of the CDC (from different sources) used the same "label name" for a graph with similar but very different data - cases of studies showing that e.g. some vaccine is not perfect in some very specific situations being taking as proof that it's not working at all - same for tests etc. - court cases won due to formalities being taken as proof that vaccines don't work (e.g. anti-vaccer creating a bounty for a proof of them being wrong but intentionally formulating the requirement for the bounty submissions subtle in a way that no submission is ever valid for submission and as such they won the court case about not paying out the money, even through the submission proofed them wrong) A commonly used fallacy of the mind is that people jump from "this solution is not perfect" to "this solution MUST be replaced" to "a solution which is perceived to be the opposite is therefore true". Like "this test has wrong results in rare cases" => "this test can not be trusted at all" => "all tests of this kind are untranslatable" => "there is no need to test because all tests are fake anyway" => "covid doesn't exists". As a side not I have seen that kind of thinking to often in IT too like: "this library turned out imperfect once we knew more about it" => "we must replace this library" => "this other library which used the imperfection of the first library in it's advertisements but of which we don't know anything about is correct and must be used". I believe it's of upmost importance to improve science to general-public communications and argument all kinds of reports, articles and papers with a section targeting the general public. As well as rehabilitating state organs which are focused on providing easy understandable content and explanations, while being vowed (by law required) to objectivity and transparency and making it highly punished for politicians, other state organs or well any kind of institution trying to influence it.

jtbayly 5y ago

I assume it has been claimed on FB that this is proof that the flu didn't disappear but just got misdiagnosed as Covid, and/or that the Covid tests results couldn't be trusted at all, hence they have been withdrawn.

belltaco 5y ago
That's exactly what happened in right wing circles, I saw it on Twitter and Reddit too.
manofmanysmiles 5y ago
How should this be interpreted? Isn’t implying that the test can’t tell the difference between flu and covid? If that’s true, then, how can we be sure that flu hasn’t been misdiagnosed? What percentage of Covid cases were classified using PCR tests?
- unanswered 5y ago
  > If that’s true, then, how can we be sure that flu hasn’t been misdiagnosed? Because I haven't seen anything on Facebook, or self-censoring HN for that matter, validating those claims. So they must be but only false but really out-there wacky conspiracy theories.
- 13years 5y ago
  Yes, it does state that. However, there is the word 'and' between detection and differentiation. The original could not detect, so therefore differentiation is a moot point. Also, the test for flu was a separate test. So it would have had no effect on the lower flu incidence assuming we didn't test for flu at a lesser rate.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    >assuming we didn't test for flu at a lesser rate. Do we have any numbers on this? I would imagine a lot of people who went to the doctor or whoever complaining of flu like symptoms would have been tested for covid.
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      Yes. We have figures for it. In 2017-18, there were 1.21M flu tests over the course of 33 weeks. In 2020-21 there were 1.11M flu tests over 33 weeks. Results: Essentially a 0% positive test rate vs a peak of over 25%. A peak of about 125 cases vs 20,000 cases. 1: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54973 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54973 2: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2020-2021/data/whoAllregt_cl28.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2020-2021/data/...

cbsmith 5y ago

Context is king. I can easily imagine this content being used to present false narratives. This is the underlying problem we're dealing with.

clipradiowallet 5y ago
> This is the underlying problem we're dealing with. What's the underlying problem? How are we dealing with it? As someone who does not and has never had a facebook account, I have very little context to understand what you are talking about.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  someone on facebook: "SEE! THE CDC/FDA/CIA/IRS HAS BEEN LYING TO US ALL ALONG! THEIR TEST FOR THE VIRUS WAS RIGGED! NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO HIDE THAT BY TELLING EVERYONE TO USE A DIFFERENT TEST! DON'T BE A SHEEP, KNOW TEH TURTH AND SET YOURSELF FREE!" and then cites this link from the CDC as "context"
  - acdha 5y ago
    Anyone flagging this because they think it's an exaggeration, well, I envy you not having direct counterexamples in your immediate family. Paul is almost pitch-perfect explaining posts which real people make in all seriousness.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      I don't think it's an exaggeration, and I wouldn't flag it, but I worry about the attitude. Officials are telling the truth about the danger of the coronavirus, but sometimes they do lie! We can't afford to cultivate an attitude that only raving lunatics accuse government agencies of lying.
      - acdha 5y ago
        No, but I think it’s important to do that by relying on reason and evidence. Anyone known to repeat lies is unlikely to be right about deep secrets, just as the Snowden leak didn’t validate the people convinced that the government was reading your emails on behalf of the Trilateral Commission and aliens in Area 51.

notatoad 5y ago

i think the problem is that facebook doesn't actually fact-check anything. they abdicate that responsibility to third parties that they designate as "fact checkers", and designated fact checkers include some organizations who may not have an entirely firm grasp on what's true.

kahirsch 5y ago

People were spreading misinformation about the link. Just to be clear, there is no recall. The test is not defective. The test can be used through the end of the year. The CDC recommends using tests that can detect flu as well as COVID. The current PCR test from the CDC does not detect flu at all, or other coronaviruses. The test is very specific. See pages 40 on in the Instructions for Use[1] if you are interested. The test sequences were compared (by computer) to hundreds of thousands of genomes of flu, the human genome, and other organisms, as well as tested on physical specimens. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download#page=41 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download#page=41 Here is a sample of messages that were shared on Reddit: > The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED. The FRAUDULENT PCR Test has finally been ruled a Class I Recall. This is the most serious type of recall. All measurements based on PCR Testing should come to an end ASAP: > CDC retracts PCR test as it can't differentiate between COVID and the flu. It was all a Lie. > CDC pulls PCR tests because they can’t distinguish Covid from the flu. We finally caught the SOBs who have lied to us about the coronavirus numbers the last year. > The Pandemic narrative is unravelling... The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED. It is a Class I recall. The most serious type of recall. Too many false POSITIVES. This is the test that started the pandemic! > CDC to Withdraw Emergency Use Authorization for PCR Test Because It Cannot Distinguish Between SARS-CoV-2 and the Flu. > Watch the panicked minority bombard the comments with establishment talking points to try and refute this tweet.. PCR is being rescinded as a test, vaccinated people are filling hospitals, and our government officials are still urging us to get tested using PCR and get jabbed with the Covid vaccines. Alrighty then.

Terretta 5y ago
This was beautiful, reading the actual text first, and only then the hot takes. Thanks for that collection.
dathinab 5y ago
There are people which distribute false information which use extreamly clever highly manipulative methods which more often then not show a clear understanding of the matter in question. And I feel that it's a degree of understanding of both the topic and method about how to subtitle manipulate people that I think they themself should be clearly aware about them spreading false information. One method often used is to take some "official" article, paper, etc. which is not targeting a general-public audience but a audience of people with specialized knowledge and then twist what it supposedly says and spread it to people which in general do not have this specialized knowledge but where they know that with the given combination of pre-feed misinformation and non-understanding of the content and complex language/terminology their targets will see it as proof for the false information. Even if it might proof the exact opposite. Examples include: - this link - a case where two very different statistics of the CDC (from different sources) used the same "label name" for a graph with similar but very different data - cases of studies showing that e.g. some vaccine is not perfect in some very specific situations being taking as proof that it's not working at all - same for tests etc. - court cases won due to formalities being taken as proof that vaccines don't work (e.g. anti-vaccer creating a bounty for a proof of them being wrong but intentionally formulating the requirement for the bounty submissions subtle in a way that no submission is ever valid for submission and as such they won the court case about not paying out the money, even through the submission proofed them wrong) A commonly used fallacy of the mind is that people jump from "this solution is not perfect" to "this solution MUST be replaced" to "a solution which is perceived to be the opposite is therefore true". Like "this test has wrong results in rare cases" => "this test can not be trusted at all" => "all tests of this kind are untranslatable" => "there is no need to test because all tests are fake anyway" => "covid doesn't exists". As a side not I have seen that kind of thinking to often in IT too like: "this library turned out imperfect once we knew more about it" => "we must replace this library" => "this other library which used the imperfection of the first library in it's advertisements but of which we don't know anything about is correct and must be used". I believe it's of upmost importance to improve science to general-public communications and argument all kinds of reports, articles and papers with a section targeting the general public. As well as rehabilitating state organs which are focused on providing easy understandable content and explanations, while being vowed (by law required) to objectivity and transparency and making it highly punished for politicians, other state organs or well any kind of institution trying to influence it.