Toronto Public Health admitted that covid deaths are inflated
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Recovered patients who tested positive for COVID-19 likely not reinfected
More than 260 COVID-19 patients in South Korea tested positive for the coronavirus after having recovered, raising alarm that the virus might be capable of "reactivating" or infecting people more than once. But infectious disease experts now say both are unlikely.
Rather, the method used to detect the coronavirus, called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), cannot distinguish between genetic material (RNA or DNA) from infectious virus and the "dead" virus fragments that can linger in the body long after a person recovers, Dr. Oh Myoung-don, a Seoul National University Hospital doctor, said at a news briefing Thursday (April 30), according to The Korea Herald.
These tests "are very simple," said Carol Shoshkes Reiss, a professor of Biology and Neural Science at New York University, who was not involved in the testing. "Although somebody can recover and no longer be infectious, they may still have these little fragments of [inactive] viral RNA which turn out positive on those tests."
www.livescience.com
PCR Test False Positives: "When seven staff at a Scottish football club tested positive for coronavirus, alarm bells went off. But really alarming was when six of those results turned out to be wrong. Such inaccurate tests are exaggerating the problem."
www.rt.com
More than 260 COVID-19 patients in South Korea tested positive for the coronavirus after having recovered, raising alarm that the virus might be capable of "reactivating" or infecting people more than once. But infectious disease experts now say both are unlikely.
Rather, the method used to detect the coronavirus, called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), cannot distinguish between genetic material (RNA or DNA) from infectious virus and the "dead" virus fragments that can linger in the body long after a person recovers, Dr. Oh Myoung-don, a Seoul National University Hospital doctor, said at a news briefing Thursday (April 30), according to The Korea Herald.
These tests "are very simple," said Carol Shoshkes Reiss, a professor of Biology and Neural Science at New York University, who was not involved in the testing. "Although somebody can recover and no longer be infectious, they may still have these little fragments of [inactive] viral RNA which turn out positive on those tests."
Recovered patients who tested positive for COVID-19 likely not reinfected
This phenomenon is likely due to the shortcomings of the coronavirus test, experts say
www.livescience.com
PCR Test False Positives: "When seven staff at a Scottish football club tested positive for coronavirus, alarm bells went off. But really alarming was when six of those results turned out to be wrong. Such inaccurate tests are exaggerating the problem."
The problem of false positives from Covid-19 tests means UK is inflating its numbers – and taking wrong decisions
When seven staff at a Scottish football club tested positive for coronavirus, alarm bells went off. But really alarming was when six of those results turned out to be wrong. Such inaccurate tests are exaggerating the problem.
There you go. A little late and I don’t know if anyone else did. Didn’t bother with the thread, but there you go. I hope you get to use it often. Just copy and paste the link. I will keep it hosted for Ya! Lol
why public health official not calling for bio hazard bins for those disposable masks that are littering roads and parks?
Out of a population of 14,470,000 only 63 people are hospitalized. 0.0004% of population hospitalized. Ontario has 35,000 hospital beds so 0.2% are being used. Remember 15 days to bend the curve so hospitals are not overwhelmed. That was 6 months ago.
Careful, he's threatening to put us on ignore! OMG, what would I do if I was being ignored by CM?
There you go. A little late and I don’t know if anyone else did. Didn’t bother with the thread, but there you go. I hope you get to use it often. Just copy and paste the link. I will keep it hosted for Ya! Lol
CM, you need me and you know it. When you eventually get your first fine for not wearing your mask, you will come here crying and I'll be saying from the rooftop "I told you so" , that will be epic! You will not want to miss out on it.
Notice all the masks? No, of course not.no "social distancing" when remembering the life of RGB
no i will put you on ignore if you continue to respond with insults
these fines are not worth the paper they are printed on and i can always get a lawyer to fight them
You're misinterpreting the insults like you do the data! I'm replying to you with astonishment, disbelief and disgust more than insulting you on a personal level. Never take it personally. Instead, enjoy the interaction. It's like wearing a mask, it's a pain in the ass but it's good for you.
Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound
BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3699 (Published 22 September 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m3699
They could do more harm than good to people, populations, and the economy
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab test is useful (but not perfect) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients.1 However, problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely, case finding, mass screening, and disease surveillance.
This is because PCR is not a test of infectiousness. Rather, the test detects trace amounts of viral genome sequence, which may be either live transmissible virus or irrelevant RNA fragments from previous infection.2 When people with symptoms or who have been recently exposed receive a positive PCR result they will probably be infectious. But a positive result in someone without symptoms or known recent exposure may be from live or dead virus, and so does not determine whether the person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to others.3
The PCR “cycle threshold” (Ct) value provides an estimate of the quantity of target RNA in the swab sample. It correlates with symptoms,4 and people with low Ct values (indicating more viral material) are those most likely to be infectious.5 Using a low maximum Ct value (around 3056) has been suggested to reduce problematic detection of dead virus,6 but it will also miss early infection and rising infectiousness in both presymptomatic and symptomatic people. The measurement error of Ct values is non-trivial, and measurements vary between manufacturers and laboratories.7 Thus it is impossible to define a universally optimal Ct value for reliable identification of those who are infectious.
If PCR is used to identify cases through mass testing of healthy people, it will deliver positive results in individuals with previous resolved infections, new infections, and potential re-infections, as well as false positives in people genuinely not harbouring the virus (around 0.8% of all tests performed8). Identifying the truly infectious—who must isolate—is not straightforward, even with a clinical history. For example, between 4% and 41% of cases are asymptomatic, with a risk of transmission roughly half that of symptomatic cases,9 but a positive test in those with no history of symptoms could indicate either current infection or previously resolved asymptomatic infection.
Real concern exists that many people who are not infectious (and not likely to become infectious) will receive positive test results, and together with their contacts, will be forced to isolate unnecessarily. In the context of mass surveillance, this could be a majority of those who test positive. Using PCR for population screening—even with a lower maximum Ct value cut off—is not epidemiologically sound. The balance of costs and harms against the potential benefits has not been evaluated
Testing conundrums
Now, Operation Moonshot has proposed that mass screening with less accurate point-of-care tests will help “reduce the ‘R’ rate, keep the economy open and enable a return to normal life.”10 Could this work?
The Moonshot proposals are based exclusively on computer modelling11 not empirical evidence. Critically, the model considers repeated use of tests that are positive only in infected people with high viral loads of SARS-CoV-2. The crux of the assumptions in the Moonshot modelling is that the test must have a high chance of being positive when a person is infectious and a low chance when they are not.11 Thus, although the proposed test has lower sensitivity than PCR for detecting any infection with SARS-CoV-2, it must have equal sensitivity for detecting infections that could be passed on to others.
It is inappropriate to describe a test with these properties as “less accurate”— a description that has allowed some companies to launch suboptimal products,12 possibly encouraged by the magnitude of government contracts, low levels of government scrutiny, and the lack of an effective regulatory process for diagnostic tests.13
Frequent repeat testing is necessary as the proposed test will only identify people with new infections when their viral load becomes high. Since Moonshot proposes use of point-of-care tests, delays in receiving results would be eliminated and isolation can be immediate. But no point-of-care tests approved for home use are currently available.
One fundamental challenge is that proper evaluation of any point-of-care test destined for mass screening requires a robust and reliable way to identify true infectiousness: we need a reference standard against which the new test’s performance can be compared. Viral culture is one option, but culture based tests are hard to run and have high failure rates.5
The Moonshot proposals have been condemned for not considering the potential harms from repeated frequent testing of whole populations.12 All tests generate some false positives and false negatives. The consequences of high false negative rates are most serious in symptomatic people who can transmit disease. Up to 30% of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are missed by swab based PCR testing, for example.14
False positives become a problem when individuals and their contacts have to self-isolate unnecessarily. Even with a specificity of 99%, proposals to do 10 million tests a day will generate many thousands of false positive results, causing unnecessary but legally enforced isolation of both cases and contacts with potentially damaging consequences for the UK economy and for civil liberties.
Footnotes
www.bmj.com
BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3699 (Published 22 September 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m3699
They could do more harm than good to people, populations, and the economy
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab test is useful (but not perfect) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients.1 However, problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely, case finding, mass screening, and disease surveillance.
This is because PCR is not a test of infectiousness. Rather, the test detects trace amounts of viral genome sequence, which may be either live transmissible virus or irrelevant RNA fragments from previous infection.2 When people with symptoms or who have been recently exposed receive a positive PCR result they will probably be infectious. But a positive result in someone without symptoms or known recent exposure may be from live or dead virus, and so does not determine whether the person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to others.3
The PCR “cycle threshold” (Ct) value provides an estimate of the quantity of target RNA in the swab sample. It correlates with symptoms,4 and people with low Ct values (indicating more viral material) are those most likely to be infectious.5 Using a low maximum Ct value (around 3056) has been suggested to reduce problematic detection of dead virus,6 but it will also miss early infection and rising infectiousness in both presymptomatic and symptomatic people. The measurement error of Ct values is non-trivial, and measurements vary between manufacturers and laboratories.7 Thus it is impossible to define a universally optimal Ct value for reliable identification of those who are infectious.
If PCR is used to identify cases through mass testing of healthy people, it will deliver positive results in individuals with previous resolved infections, new infections, and potential re-infections, as well as false positives in people genuinely not harbouring the virus (around 0.8% of all tests performed8). Identifying the truly infectious—who must isolate—is not straightforward, even with a clinical history. For example, between 4% and 41% of cases are asymptomatic, with a risk of transmission roughly half that of symptomatic cases,9 but a positive test in those with no history of symptoms could indicate either current infection or previously resolved asymptomatic infection.
Real concern exists that many people who are not infectious (and not likely to become infectious) will receive positive test results, and together with their contacts, will be forced to isolate unnecessarily. In the context of mass surveillance, this could be a majority of those who test positive. Using PCR for population screening—even with a lower maximum Ct value cut off—is not epidemiologically sound. The balance of costs and harms against the potential benefits has not been evaluated
Testing conundrums
Now, Operation Moonshot has proposed that mass screening with less accurate point-of-care tests will help “reduce the ‘R’ rate, keep the economy open and enable a return to normal life.”10 Could this work?
The Moonshot proposals are based exclusively on computer modelling11 not empirical evidence. Critically, the model considers repeated use of tests that are positive only in infected people with high viral loads of SARS-CoV-2. The crux of the assumptions in the Moonshot modelling is that the test must have a high chance of being positive when a person is infectious and a low chance when they are not.11 Thus, although the proposed test has lower sensitivity than PCR for detecting any infection with SARS-CoV-2, it must have equal sensitivity for detecting infections that could be passed on to others.
It is inappropriate to describe a test with these properties as “less accurate”— a description that has allowed some companies to launch suboptimal products,12 possibly encouraged by the magnitude of government contracts, low levels of government scrutiny, and the lack of an effective regulatory process for diagnostic tests.13
Frequent repeat testing is necessary as the proposed test will only identify people with new infections when their viral load becomes high. Since Moonshot proposes use of point-of-care tests, delays in receiving results would be eliminated and isolation can be immediate. But no point-of-care tests approved for home use are currently available.
One fundamental challenge is that proper evaluation of any point-of-care test destined for mass screening requires a robust and reliable way to identify true infectiousness: we need a reference standard against which the new test’s performance can be compared. Viral culture is one option, but culture based tests are hard to run and have high failure rates.5
The Moonshot proposals have been condemned for not considering the potential harms from repeated frequent testing of whole populations.12 All tests generate some false positives and false negatives. The consequences of high false negative rates are most serious in symptomatic people who can transmit disease. Up to 30% of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are missed by swab based PCR testing, for example.14
False positives become a problem when individuals and their contacts have to self-isolate unnecessarily. Even with a specificity of 99%, proposals to do 10 million tests a day will generate many thousands of false positive results, causing unnecessary but legally enforced isolation of both cases and contacts with potentially damaging consequences for the UK economy and for civil liberties.
Footnotes
- Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests. JD leads the Cochrane covid-19 test evaluation reviews and is a member of the Royal Statistical Society covid-19 task force steering group. AP is a member of independent SAGE.
Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound
They could do more harm than good to people, populations, and the economy The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab test is useful (but not perfect) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients.1 However, problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of...
www.bmj.com
GHOULISH FRAUD: Youngest “C19 Victim” in Michigan Actually Died from Birth Defect where Baby is Born with Intestines Located Outside its Body
The immediate cause of death for a 2-month-old the state's top medical doctor said died because of COVID-19 was a birth defect called gastroschisis, a condition in which a baby is born with intestines located outside the body, according to the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner.
Necrotizing enterocolitis and COVID-19 also were listed as other conditions on the baby's death certificate, according to a medical examiner report obtained by The Detroit News.
The baby was announced, but not named by the state, as Michigan's youngest victim of COVID-19 Wednesday, but no details were given as to the infant's gender, hometown or any underlying conditions.
"I was so saddened to hear this week of a 2-month-old baby in Michigan who died because of COVID-19," Chief Medical Executive Joneigh Khaldun announced at the press conference.
The infant, who was from the Upper Peninsula, died Sunday at Children's Wisconsin in Milwaukee, according to his death certificate.
While gastroschisis is listed as the immediate cause of death, an accompanying investigation report from the medical examiner's office noted that he "died from COVID-19." He had tested positive for the virus on Sept. 8.
"He had GI symptoms of the disease, which exacerbated his tenuous congenital defects," the report said.
The state has declined further comment on the case, but officials noted the health department considers deaths to be COVID-19-associated if the individual died within 30 days of onset.
"MDHHS relies on the judgment of treating physicians in determining whether a death is associated with COVID-19," said Bob Wheaton, a spokesman for the department, on Friday.
The baby's mother, Brooke Granquist, declined to comment when reached by The News on Friday. But in a Facebook post that has since been removed, Granquist expressed her anger over the state attributing her child's death to COVID-19.
“I am angry. I am so ANGRY. If you heard the state of Michigan report on COVID this morning, you may have heard a 2 month old baby died of COVID. I need everyone to know that (my child) did NOT die of COVID," she wrote.
www.detroitnews.com
The immediate cause of death for a 2-month-old the state's top medical doctor said died because of COVID-19 was a birth defect called gastroschisis, a condition in which a baby is born with intestines located outside the body, according to the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner.
Necrotizing enterocolitis and COVID-19 also were listed as other conditions on the baby's death certificate, according to a medical examiner report obtained by The Detroit News.
The baby was announced, but not named by the state, as Michigan's youngest victim of COVID-19 Wednesday, but no details were given as to the infant's gender, hometown or any underlying conditions.
"I was so saddened to hear this week of a 2-month-old baby in Michigan who died because of COVID-19," Chief Medical Executive Joneigh Khaldun announced at the press conference.
The infant, who was from the Upper Peninsula, died Sunday at Children's Wisconsin in Milwaukee, according to his death certificate.
While gastroschisis is listed as the immediate cause of death, an accompanying investigation report from the medical examiner's office noted that he "died from COVID-19." He had tested positive for the virus on Sept. 8.
"He had GI symptoms of the disease, which exacerbated his tenuous congenital defects," the report said.
The state has declined further comment on the case, but officials noted the health department considers deaths to be COVID-19-associated if the individual died within 30 days of onset.
"MDHHS relies on the judgment of treating physicians in determining whether a death is associated with COVID-19," said Bob Wheaton, a spokesman for the department, on Friday.
The baby's mother, Brooke Granquist, declined to comment when reached by The News on Friday. But in a Facebook post that has since been removed, Granquist expressed her anger over the state attributing her child's death to COVID-19.
“I am angry. I am so ANGRY. If you heard the state of Michigan report on COVID this morning, you may have heard a 2 month old baby died of COVID. I need everyone to know that (my child) did NOT die of COVID," she wrote.
Michigan infant with COVID died from serious birth defect
The immediate cause of death for a 2-month-old the state said died because of COVID-19 was a birth defect called Gastroschisis
www.detroitnews.com
I know I shouldn’t feed into, I truly do know butttttttttt......
He has a point.
OMG. I can’t believe I just said that.
CM believes I insult him but in reality, I'm just here to help him. He complains he needs to work, I find him a job. I notice on Twitter he gets no likes, next to no replies but here, I make sure to give him a little love and attention. All I do and what do I get back, "I'm going to put you on ignore". I feel used, I really do.
From the CDC website.
For all the other deaths reported by the CDC linked to COVID-19, the individuals who passed away had 2-3 other serious illnesses or co-morbidities. This comes from actual data from the CDC (as posted above).
For all the other deaths reported by the CDC linked to COVID-19, the individuals who passed away had 2-3 other serious illnesses or co-morbidities. This comes from actual data from the CDC (as posted above).
34 people in Durham Region given incorrect positive COVID-19 tests
globalnews.ca
34 people in Durham Region given incorrect positive COVID-19 tests | Globalnews.ca
The error involved cases being reported at two Durham District School Boards and at a child care centre.
globalnews.ca
Weaning everyone off of the family connection seems to be on the agenda. Here in Canada they're saying no Thanksgiving!
Exclusive: Ministers must tell students to stay at university over Christmas holidays to avoid further Covid-19 outbreaks. SAGE minutes warn of "larger outbreaks spilling over from HE institutions” at the end of academic term
inews.co.uk
Exclusive: Ministers must tell students to stay at university over Christmas holidays to avoid further Covid-19 outbreaks. SAGE minutes warn of "larger outbreaks spilling over from HE institutions” at the end of academic term
Ministers 'must tell students to stay on campus over Christmas' to prevent Covid-19 outbreaks
SAGE warns of 'larger outbreaks' when students return from university at end of academic term
inews.co.uk
Here's Premier Ford saying 70-80% of "cases have no symptoms at all"
