Did you know there was a 'TON' of COVID going around this summer???

  • Thread starter Thread starter harddriver
  • Start date Start date
Dan Gleesak said:
This I understand.
But to say there isn’t real test for covid is rubbish.
Click to expand...
If you call an average of 35-40% accuracy on qualitative results a real test, then sure. In lab work that's not considered a reliable test. But it's all we got until a better method comes along.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
If you call an average of 35-40% accuracy on qualitative results a real test, then sure. In lab work that's not considered a reliable test. But it's all we got until a better method comes along.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe PCR testing in general to be that low at all, nor have I heard it anywhere but from you. I have far too many friends in the field who disagree.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Geo
Dan Gleesak said:
I have far too many friends in the field who disagree.
Click to expand...
Are these the "drag queens" ?

1725698786888.png
 
Dan Gleesak said:
I don’t believe PCR testing in general to be that low at all, nor have I heard it anywhere but from you. I have far too many friends in the field who disagree.
Click to expand...

PCR testing that has been established for other pathogens has a much higher accuracy. So yes, in general PCR testing doesn't have that low of accuracy. PCR for COVID is a different story all together. Testing procedures were haphazardly thrown together by the CDC and/or other agencies with no updates to methodology since first being rolled out.

I've witnessed everything first hand. My wife is part of the process for those samples. She does sample accessioning and some pretest sample prep. My coworkers who run patient samples along with routine quality control samples continue to confirm the low accuracy rate. QA and management confirm these results.

My section is setting up a COVID wastewater lab. Since it's wastewater it falls under environmental. It uses basically the same PCR test; just slightly modified for wastewater instead of human samples. The lab is part of phase 2 of a pilot program being rolled out by the fed. gov't. We get to see phase 1 data and it's no better than what the clinical lab is producing. Our preliminary data is on par with that too. Our asst. lab director called it "the wild west of testing" meaning procedures and results are all over the place.

This is all internal. What lab leadership, State, and Federal agencies have released to the public is a completely different story. You can continue believing what you want, but I'll go with my first hand experience with it.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
PCR testing that has been established for other pathogens has a much higher accuracy. So yes, in general PCR testing doesn't have that low of accuracy. PCR for COVID is a different story all together. Testing procedures were haphazardly thrown together by the CDC and/or other agencies with no updates to methodology since first being rolled out.

I've witnessed everything first hand. My wife is part of the process for those samples. She does sample accessioning and some pretest sample prep. My coworkers who run patient samples along with routine quality control samples continue to confirm the low accuracy rate. QA and management confirm these results.

My section is setting up a COVID wastewater lab. Since it's wastewater it falls under environmental. It uses basically the same PCR test; just slightly modified for wastewater instead of human samples. The lab is part of phase 2 of a pilot program being rolled out by the fed. gov't. We get to see phase 1 data and it's no better than what the clinical lab is producing. Our preliminary data is on par with that too. Our asst. lab director called it "the wild west of testing" meaning procedures and results are all over the place.

This is all internal. What lab leadership, State, and Federal agencies have released to the public is a completely different story. You can continue believing what you want, but I'll go with my first hand experience with it.
Click to expand...
My only “hands on” experience is with the wastewater side of it as I take care of a handful of treatment sites, but my ex was the one that was on the chemistry side of it. She eventually landed a cushy pharmaceutical gig, but she was doing toxicology for a long time before that. Part of why we split up, I couldn’t stand going out for drinks with friends and hearing about nothing but samples all night lol
 
MadAsAHatter said:
If you call an average of 35-40% accuracy on qualitative results a real test, then sure. In lab work that's not considered a reliable test. But it's all we got until a better method comes along.
Click to expand...
That's what I call useless, would you believe a 35% positive cancer diagnosis?

And how do you believe the 35% when there is no real sample to test against?

It sounds more like a scare tactic.
 
Ben Waylin said:
Bro over there sent me a nasty-gram and told me to stop posting mah clips in that thread.

(n)
Click to expand...

I think a few people asked you to stop doing that. Were the dozen or threads you started for your clips not enough?
 
Geo said:
That's what I call useless, would you believe a 35% positive cancer diagnosis?

And how do you believe the 35% when there is no real sample to test against?

It sounds more like a scare tactic.
Click to expand...
That’s because you’re mental
 
I mean, who TF gets their panties in a twist over people posting guitar playing clips on a fuckn guitar forum ?

giphy.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Geo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top