Guess who called this one

[Guest]

Newspapers rarely publish data so it's not surprising that the NY times did not provide any results.  Discussing scientific data is more than opinion, it is an informed opinion with supporting data.  It will be interesting to follow and see how this all shakes out.

[Guest]

Here is the weird irony. I thought someone said we were way ahead of testing and have very good testing. So now we are saying our testing is wrong/off not good?
What happened to good testing? Lastly if at this point we still don't have a streamlined/uniform testing then we are back to the original issue... we don't have a good testing process. 

[Guest]

@IDVikingfan said:
Newspapers rarely publish data so it's not surprising that the NY times did not provide any results.  Discussing scientific data is more than opinion, it is an informed opinion with supporting data.  It will be interesting to follow and see how this all shakes out.

Look at update two, I had one of my sources review the article. 

Update II:  The article is written by someone who hasn't done qPCR
and is not an epidemiologist. qPCR measures the number of cycles a
visible fluorescent signal attached to the primer is doubled to be
visible.  This is not a measure of viral load, but how much virus was in
the swab.  There are many steps from initial inoculation, viral load, entry
to the cell, which presumably uses the ACE receptor, location of the
cell, how the virus influences the cell, and the uniqueness of the host
(males are more vulnerable than women, blacks seem to be more vulnerable
than whites, old are more vulnerable than young etc).  Does the virus
move to different body parts (heart, kidneys, brain, blood vessels,
lungs). And none of this is necessarily related to the amount of virus
in a swab!  We DO know that anyone who tests positive has been exposed
to enough viral load to be infected and for the virus to begin to
generate new viruses.  Symptom free or not they are still infected.  We
also know that there are a high level of false negatives, where the PCR
test failed to detect the virus because of many reasons. 

[Guest]

Thanks for the info!  Just curious, is there a time when the virus is more contagious?  Testing positive doesn't necessary indicate contagious, correct?  Does the viral load relate to contagiousness of the infection?

[Guest]

No there is no time from beginning to end for exposure,  they replicate, don't grow, depends on the environment how long viable.  Yes positive means contagious and no viral load does not relate to ability to infect.   It's like collecting pennies, have some give some. 

[Guest]

@BigAl99 said:
No there is no time from beginning to end for exposure,  they replicate, don't grow, depends on the environment how long viable.  Yes positive means contagious and no viral load does not relate to ability to infect.   It's like collecting pennies, have some give some. 

bullshit.  That is the whole premise of wearing the stupid masks.

[Guest]

@greediron said:

@BigAl99 said:
No there is no time from beginning to end for exposure,  they replicate, don't grow, depends on the environment how long viable.  Yes positive means contagious and no viral load does not relate to ability to infect.   It's like collecting pennies, have some give some. 

bullshit.  That is the whole premise of wearing the stupid masks.

Who the f is talking about masks the discussion is about qPCR and it measuring swab viral load.  Day late dollar short and another display of missing the point.  No clue what point you are trying to make.

[Guest]

@BigAl99 said:

@greediron said:

@BigAl99 said:
No there is no time from beginning to end for exposure,  they replicate, don't grow, depends on the environment how long viable.  Yes positive means contagious and no viral load does not relate to ability to infect.   It's like collecting pennies, have some give some. 

bullshit.  That is the whole premise of wearing the stupid masks.

Who the f is talking about masks the discussion is about qPCR and it measuring swab viral load.  Day late dollar short and another display of missing the point.  No clue what point you are trying to make.

 Sorry I have to explain your point to you, but viral load does relate to the ability or likelihood of infecting another. Reducing the viral load was supposed to be be the point of the masks. And positive PCR does not mean contagious.  Might want to check the science on that test.  And the other possibilities of a "positive. 

[Guest]

Guess I'll correct my wife and son, she wrote update2, and he just laughed at you.  As she said after reading your statement, "can't argue with dumb", "don't go there, walk away".

[Guest]

hooray for you.  That must have been a big relief she didn't laugh at you.