new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here Nilbog has not one mention of AIDS.

---

OH NOES, I left out the other statistic on the page. Don't much matter to 6ix EITHER WAY, which is my point. 20k or 80k, he doesn't know any at risk group people so he thinks it doesn't exist.


Go have sex with some inner city crack whores, and we'll see what he catches...


In 2018, 17,032 people in the U.S. and 6 dependent areas received a stage 3 (AIDS) diagnosis. (The late stage of HIV infection that occurs when the body’s immune system is badly damaged because of the virus.)

In 2017, there were 16,350 deaths among adults and adolescents with diagnosed HIV in the United States and 6 dependent areas. These deaths may be due to any cause.





I'm wondering if he was terrorized by the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny too??

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Back to the OP:

I've been really puzzling about the SARS-COV-2 testing, or lack of it. So I've been trying to track down what's with the test kits and testing.

And if somebody knows, they ain't telling!


Instead of using WHO's test kits, the CDC decided to develop their own, which caused a delay in testing, and managed to squeeze out very few kits.

I think that's why, when it comes to WHICH PEOPLE got tested, patients had to have come from a high-risk travel or exposure history, to ration the kits. THAT'S WHY THE RECENT WASHINGTON COMMUNITY-SPREAD CASE DIDN'T GET TESTED FOR 4 DAYS EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTORS WERE ASKING FOR IT. The patient didn't meet the CDC's high-risk travel or exposure history criteria. And the CDC refused. (It' still a mystery to me how the Washington doctors got around that. Maybe they filled out the forms with a nudge and a .)

Below is a screen grab which shows, as of March 1, the pathetically low number of people tested (and the fact that that category disappeared March 2):



As for which labs could do the testing, the best I could come up with is this:

Quote:

---

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/tool-virus-requests.html

CDC’s diagnostic panel is intended for use by laboratories designated by CDC as qualified, and in the United States, certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) to perform high complexity tests. This includes U.S. state and local public health laboratories and Department of Defense (DoD) laboratories.

---

Does that mean ALL state and local public health laboratories, and DoD laboratories are certified to do this 'high complexity' testing? I dunno. I dug around and the best I could some up with was a list of state agencies to contact to see if they could tell me which laboratories might be so certified. (And for the record, it's not going to happen.) https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CLIA/Download
s/CLIASA.pdf


Noodling around the internet and putting things together I came up with this summary:

Apparently the original test kits sent out by the CDC were funky. A negative control (when you run it you're supposed to not find SARS-COV-2 DNA) was coming out positive in some laboratories. It looks like only a few laboratories were able to consistently pass all the QC checks including the negative control, and so those states got their state health departments certified to do the test themselves (6 days ago).

Those were California, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada and Tennessee. https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-coronovirus-test.html

To work around their bungled test kits, the CDC asked for and received an emergency approval from the FDA to run the tests without the negative control. So another batch of states received certification to run their own tests 3-4 days ago.

It looks like these states are running the tests and reporting them as presumptive, while waiting for the CDC to re-run them for confirmation.



Alaska State Virology Lab based in Fairbanks
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/alaska-now-has-the-capacity-t
o-test-for-the-novel/article_73ab2072-5a7b-11ea-b93f-eb6a31f430e6.html
State public health lab approved to test for coronavirus as Connecticut Democrats fight for more federal funds
https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/Connecticut-health-lab-approv
ed-to-test-for-15092918.php
Coronavirus updates: Massachusetts Department of Public Health gets FDA approval to test for the virus
https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/02/massachusetts-department-of-publ
ic-health-gets-fda-ok-to-test-for-coronavirus.html
Iowa State Hygienic Laboratory now able to test for COVID-19
https:

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/asia/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-int
l-hnk/index.html

The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said that public health officials are operating in "uncharted territory" as they combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, which has infected more than 90,000 people across 73 countries and territories as of Monday evening.

The WHO has so far held off on classifying the incident as a global pandemic, but has warned it is a possibility in the near future.

---

The pandemic bonds mature July 2020.

Quote:

---

"Let's be clear: The risk to the American people of the coronavirus remains low, according to all of the experts that we are working with across the government," Pence said.

---

Because there's "only" 100 cases in the US ... that they know of.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

As far as testing is concerned ... I read an article which I will try to find (but doubtful in the welter of articles out there) that said that EVERY state public health lab in the USA was equipped and prepared to run diagnostic tests by an alternate method. The article implied that this involved looking for the RNA of the virus itself by direct sequencing. (Apparently coronaviruses are retroviruses) That's 50 labs. I'm sure there are many commercial labs equipped and prepared to do the same thing.


But the CDC is reluctant to sign off on an alternate test method ... I'm sure you understand both the urgency for, and the hesitation about implementing alternate test methods in a time-critical situation. As a former supervisor who's evaluated dozens of alternate methods and had to do rapid testing, sometimes for deadly poisons, I know I sure do! There's a huge problem if you fail to detect something meaningful.

But I would prolly sign off on alternate test methods if their performance was fairly well-known ... sensitivity, false positives v false negatives etc ... and design a program to take those test parameters into account. For example, if looking for viral RNA is plagued with false negatives, I would take a positive result as probative, but I would not "clear" patients with negative results until they had three negative results taken 7 days apart (or something like that).

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Meanwhile, the shock of discovering another "first" ... first patient, first death, first cluster ... in yet another nation, state, or province, seems to be wearing off.

We've been seeing patients being rushed to hospital under oxygen by medics in space suits, which is very scary, but some reports are coming back from people who have recovered, saying that it was no worse than having a cold.

What this probably will be is a MASS PROBLEM. MOST patients are going to recover just fine, but a certain portion ... especially the elderly and those with heart problems, diabetes, or respiratory problems ... are going to become extremely ill, and there won't be enough hospital beds, IF the spread of the coronavirus isn't slowed down by isolation measures.


Here is a video by Chris Martensen who is ALWAYS predicting the end of something. But, he also has a background in biology (epidemiology, I think) and has some interesting things to say. In particular, what he says is that viral exponential growth curves start out with a few isolated cases here and there. The next thing will be clusters, and right after that it will seem to be everywhere.

KIKI, since you have background in biology and medicine, I would particularly appreciate your take one this.

*****

In the meantime, dd and I are starting a new fashion statement: we're running errands in masks. (WOW! What a way to pull a bank robbery!) We've set up a "decontamination" station at the breezeway sink, which is our dividing line between "clean" and "dirty".

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as testing is concerned ... I read an article which I will try to find (but doubtful in the welter of articles out there) that said that EVERY state public health lab in the USA was equipped and prepared to run diagnostic tests by an alternate method. The article implied that this involved looking for the RNA of the virus itself by direct sequencing. (Apparently coronaviruses are retroviruses) That's 50 labs. I'm sure there are many commercial labs equipped and prepared to do the same thing.


But the CDC is reluctant to sign off on an alternate test method ... I'm sure you understand both the urgency for, and the hesitation about implementing alternate test methods in a time-critical situation. As a former supervisor who's evaluated dozens of alternate methods and had to do rapid testing, sometimes for deadly poisons, I know I sure do! There's a huge problem if you fail to detect something meaningful.

But I would prolly sign off on alternate test methods if their performance was fairly well-known ... sensitivity, false positives v false negatives etc ... and design a program to take those test parameters into account. For example, if looking for viral RNA is plagued with false negatives, I would take a positive result as probative, but I would not "clear" patients with negative results until they had three negative results taken 7 days apart (or something like that).

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

---

If you want definitive results, there's a statistical thing called 'the power of the test' which has to do with false negatives (sensitivity) v false positives (specificity).

I think it would be much, much better to set up state labs as screening tests - where you really want an extremely sensitive, cheap, fast test (ER/ bedside is best) even if it comes at the expense of a lot of false positives. You can then re-test patients of concern with a better test method, (or even re-test with the initial method before moving on to the next level) after having weeded out everyone else.

And yanno, patients who initially test negative - perhaps for biological or sampling reasons - can always come back for retesting later.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I forgot to mention that as I was noodling around I found the CDC is also working on a serological test - one that looks for antibodies in the blood - to check for past exposure.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

THANKS for the video Signy - but I'll watch it later because I'm off! ... to run errands with mask and hand san that is.

That said "But, he also has a background in biology (epidemiology, I think) and has some interesting things to say. In particular, what he says is that viral exponential growth curves start out with a few isolated cases here and there. The next thing will be clusters, and right after that it will seem to be everywhere." is my prediction as well.

I ALSO want to add that if you're not screening/ testing for mild cases - AS THE CDC IS NOT - you won't know if you have an epidemic until your ERs are overwhelmed.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Short answer: All of the 30+ diseases with their known symptoms and known causes which have, post-1980, been redefined as "AIDS" - even though all of the same exact causes are present, and all of the same exact symptoms are present.

The so-called "AIDS" cases were defined and classed by the "AIDS" advocates to support their AIDS epidemic hysteria, so whatever they used as definition was what was used for the correlation. Since the AIDS hoax was not scientific, it is not like we can retroactively make scientific the illogical diagnosis, they were merely accepted for the criteria of determining correlation.

Somebdy mentioned 2 examples earlier - Kaposi's Sarcoma, and pneumocystis carinii.

I cannot pretend surprise if diarrhea or weight loss were used by AIDS advocates to define their "AIDS" cases, so if that is what the AIDS movement chose to define the cases, then nobody has been able to talk sense into them, then or now.


eta:


WHO’S RECOMMENDED CASE DEFINITION FOR AIDS

Different case definitions are used in different countries, depending on population factors (children, adults, relative occurrence of opportunistic infection) and on the laboratory infrastructure and training available. Current most used case definitions include for countries with... more sophisticated laboratory facilities
CDC 1987 (1)
CDC/CD4 (2)
European (3)

limited laboratory facilities
Abidjan/WHO (4)
Bangui/WHO (clinical) (5)
Caracas/PAHO (6) revised Caracas/PAHO (7)

1. 1987 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION SURVEILLANCE DEFINITION FOR AIDS

Without laboratory evidence of HIV infection (in the absence of other causes of immune suppression)

Indicator disease diagnosed definitively
Candidiasis of the oesophagus, trachea, bronchi, or lungs
Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
Cryptosporidiosis with diarrhoea persisting > 1 month
Cytomegalovirus diseases of an organ other than liver spleen, or lymph nodes in a patient >1 month of age
Herpes simplex virus infection causing a mucocutaneous ulcer persisting > 1 month; or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or
oesophagitis for any duration in a patient > 1 month of age
Kaposi’ s sarcoma in a patient < 60 years of age
Lymphoma of the brain(primary) affecting a patient < 60 years of age
Mycobacterium avuim complex or M .kansasii disease, disseminated (at a site other than or in addition to
lungs, skin, or cervical or hilar lymph nodes)
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Toxoplasmosis of the brain in a patient > 1 month of age

With laboratory evidence of HIV infection
Indicator diseases diagnosed definitively
Coccidiomycosis, disseminated (at a site other than or in addition to lungs or cervical or hilar lymph nodes)
HIV encephalopathy
Histoplasmosis, disseminated(at a sit other than or in addition to lungs or cervical or hilar lymph nodes)
Isosporiasis with diarrhoea persisting > 1 month
Kaposi’ s sarcoma at any age
Lymphoma of the brain (primary ) at any age
Non-Hodgkin’ s lymphoma
Any mycobacterial disease caused by mycobacteria other than M. tuberculosis, disseminated
Disease caused by M. tuberculosis, extrapulmonary
Salmonella (non-typhoid ) septicaemia, recurrent
HIV wasting syndrome
Indicator diseases diagnosed presumptively
Candidiasis of the oesophagus
Cytomegalovirus retinitis with loss of vision
Kaposi’ s sarcoma
Mycobacterial disease, disseminated
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
Toxoplasmosis of the brain in a patient> 1 month of age

2. CONDITIONS* ADDED TO THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 1993 SURVEILLANCE DEFINITION FOR AIDS (WITH LABORATORY EVIDENCE OF HIV INFECTION in addition to those in the 1987 surveillance definition:

Source: WHO Recommended Surveillance Standards.
(Geneva: World Health Organization, WHO/EMC/DIS/97.1, 1997).
See http://www.who.int/emc

Centers for Disease Control, United States

The dominant

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME