Jump to content

COVID 19 GLOBAL


grayray

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, boydeste said:

It was done at a UK testing site and results obtained in 48 hours. he said he had to swab the back of the throat for 15 seconds, then up each nostile for 10 seconds each. I have no idea about the process used here.

Is there more than one way to do it?

Edit - just done some research and we use a PCR process here for our Covid test centers.

Speculating wildly...

RT-PCR is a DNA amplification process (the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an RNA virus but the RNA is converted to DNA because DNA is more stable. The conversion is the RT, reverse transcriptase, part).

PCR searches for small fragments of DNA which are unique to the virus. It keeps doubling the DNA each cycle (the chain reaction) so if there was only one copy of the desired fragment then after one cycle there would be 2 copies. After the next cycle 4 then 8, 16, 32...

I don't know about the UK but in the US the norm is to run to 40 cycles so the one fragment (if present) has been copied over a trillion times (1,099,511,627,776 times to be exact).

Again in the US, there are no hard rules but if viral DNA is detected at 25 cycles or less the person not only has the virus but is also infectious. Over 34 cycles and it is probably "viral litter" left over from an infection but there is no active virus.

So your friend may have shown the presence of viral DNA but at a high cycle count.

Or it may have been something completely different.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Great Info 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, fygjam said:

Speculating wildly...

RT-PCR is a DNA amplification process (the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an RNA virus but the RNA is converted to DNA because DNA is more stable. The conversion is the RT, reverse transcriptase, part).

PCR searches for small fragments of DNA which are unique to the virus. It keeps doubling the DNA each cycle (the chain reaction) so if there was only one copy of the desired fragment then after one cycle there would be 2 copies. After the next cycle 4 then 8, 16, 32...

I don't know about the UK but in the US the norm is to run to 40 cycles so the one fragment (if present) has been copied over a trillion times (1,099,511,627,776 times to be exact).

Again in the US, there are no hard rules but if viral DNA is detected at 25 cycles or less the person not only has the virus but is also infectious. Over 34 cycles and it is probably "viral litter" left over from an infection but there is no active virus.

So your friend may have shown the presence of viral DNA but at a high cycle count.

Or it may have been something completely different.

Mmmm, you seem to be a bit of a scientific expert ?

Would your other board name be Pete ? You know, another expert from Australia ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in the categorie "genius ideas", a Belgian Scientist (Frederique Jacobs) fearing a massive Covid 19 increase during the Christmas gathering and family meetings suggest we should delay Xmas to the summer 2021 as the weather is warmer and risk of contagion will be less.......

Where will this debility stop ? 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thai Spice said:

Mmmm, you seem to be a bit of a scientific expert ?

Would your other board name be Pete ? You know, another expert from Australia ?

 

You may recall that back in the beginning I posted a YouTube video of how a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test is performed in one of the now closed threads.

But some board member squealed and complained about too much sciency stuff.

 

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, fygjam said:

Speculating wildly...

RT-PCR is a DNA amplification process (the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an RNA virus but the RNA is converted to DNA because DNA is more stable. The conversion is the RT, reverse transcriptase, part).

PCR searches for small fragments of DNA which are unique to the virus. It keeps doubling the DNA each cycle (the chain reaction) so if there was only one copy of the desired fragment then after one cycle there would be 2 copies. After the next cycle 4 then 8, 16, 32...

I don't know about the UK but in the US the norm is to run to 40 cycles so the one fragment (if present) has been copied over a trillion times (1,099,511,627,776 times to be exact).

Again in the US, there are no hard rules but if viral DNA is detected at 25 cycles or less the person not only has the virus but is also infectious. Over 34 cycles and it is probably "viral litter" left over from an infection but there is no active virus.

So your friend may have shown the presence of viral DNA but at a high cycle count.

Or it may have been something completely different.

That's a definite maybe then.

My initial post was to point out that they don't always give a positive or negative result. An inconclusive result kind of leaves you nowhere methinks.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, boydeste said:

That's a definite maybe then.

My initial post was to point out that they don't always give a positive or negative result. An inconclusive result kind of leaves you nowhere methinks.

Inconclusive usually means a re-test until a definitive result is obtained.

I forgot, in my earlier post, at least in the early days two different fragments of viral DNA were tested for along with a positive control (it should always return positive) and a negative control which should never return a positive result.

So a positive test was both fragments of viral DNA being detected plus the positive control.

A negative test was just the positive control.

Anything else was indeterminate and required a re-test.

 

  • Great Info 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fygjam said:

Inconclusive usually means a re-test until a definitive result is obtained.

I forgot, in my earlier post, at least in the early days two different fragments of viral DNA were tested for along with a positive control (it should always return positive) and a negative control which should never return a positive result.

So a positive test was both fragments of viral DNA being detected plus the positive control.

A negative test was just the positive control.

Anything else was indeterminate and required a re-test.

 

Exactly, but you don't ever see this quoted in the statistics!

Edited by boydeste
  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fygjam said:

No, because it's re-tested until a determinate result is obtained. That's what goes in the statistics.

 

 

That makes sense, but he was asked to go give another sample for testing twice. So there wasn't a final outcome yes or no to the original sample methinks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, boydeste said:

That makes sense, but he was asked to go give another sample for testing twice. So there wasn't a final outcome yes or no to the original sample methinks!

Well I'd think there's no point on running the same test on a sample that's returned an inconclusive result so it's a new sample and a new test.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fygjam said:

Well I'd think there's no point on running the same test on a sample that's returned an inconclusive result so it's a new sample and a new test.

 

Yes, which brings me back to my original point, the statistics don't reflect that. They usually quote a batch sample number and a balanced sum of positives and negatives. To be accurate they should show inconclusive results too.

Anyway, I have no medical knowledge of the situation apart from the experiences of myself, family and friends.

I appreciate your information on the matter though. Thanks for that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did the COVID antibody test, came back as negative, so no antibodies present. 

Had to fill out a long boring survey after, that even managed to squeeze in 4 questions on smoking and e cigarettes,  I've never used either. 

Not surprised at the result,  the only result I didn't want was the invalid test. Would have been annoyed if I couldn't do a simple test myself 

 

20201028_142412.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lemondropkid said:

Just did the COVID antibody test, came back as negative, so no antibodies present. 

Had to fill out a long boring survey after, that even managed to squeeze in 4 questions on smoking and e cigarettes,  I've never used either. 

Not surprised at the result,  the only result I didn't want was the invalid test. Would have been annoyed if I couldn't do a simple test myself 

 

20201028_142412.jpg

I assume the G and M are for IgG and IgM.

Antibody Test for IgG

This test detects IgG antibodies that develop in most patients within seven to 10 days after symptoms of COVID-19 begin. IgG antibodies remain in the blood after an infection has passed. These antibodies indicate that you may have had COVID-19 in the recent past and have developed antibodies that may protect you from future infection. It is unknown at this point how much protection antibodies might provide against reinfection.


Antibody Test for IgM

This test detects IgM antibodies. IgM is usually the first antibody produced by the immune system when a virus attacks. A positive IgM test indicates that you may have been infected and that your immune system has started responding to the virus.  When IgM is detected you may still be infected, or you may have recently recovered from a COVID-19 infection.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fygjam said:

You may recall that back in the beginning I posted a YouTube video of how a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test is performed in one of the now closed threads.

But some board member squealed and complained about too much sciency stuff.

 

 

I think you didn't get my point......... 

But besides that, I agree there is no need for multiples postings of "youtube experts"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, coxyhog said:

Yep, I shake my head .....

So, lockdown 1 month, number of new cases goes down, lockdown is relaxed.

But the virus is still everywhere and will restart to spread, numbers goes up again...lockdow again.... 

Madness. How long will the government use those desperate methods ? 

Oh, yeah.....in two months the magic vaccine will be there  and we will have vaccinated the whole population.....

Anyway, as a friend expat told me yesterday, we're better off here under the sun ! 

A good article about Covid in South Korea

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/2009935/south-koreans-offer-world-lessons-on-how-to-tame-coronavirus

To be noted that they had a major exercise on virus defense just a few months before Covid broke out. It sure helped. Plus their permanent preparedness for crisis situations, du to the danger caused by North Korea.

 

Edited by Thai Spice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lemondropkid said:

Just did the COVID antibody test, came back as negative, so no antibodies present. 

Had to fill out a long boring survey after, that even managed to squeeze in 4 questions on smoking and e cigarettes,  I've never used either. 

Not surprised at the result,  the only result I didn't want was the invalid test. Would have been annoyed if I couldn't do a simple test myself 

 

20201028_142412.jpg

So you’re not pregnant then. 
Phew, that’s a relief. 🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, boydeste said:

Yes, which brings me back to my original point, the statistics don't reflect that. They usually quote a batch sample number and a balanced sum of positives and negatives. To be accurate they should show inconclusive results too.

Anyway, I have no medical knowledge of the situation apart from the experiences of myself, family and friends.

I appreciate your information on the matter though. Thanks for that.

Have a look at this. It explains is a clear and easily understandable way one of the problems with the PCR tests.

The Ct ......

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thai Spice said:

Have a look at this. It explains is a clear and easily understandable way one of the problems with the PCR tests.

The Ct ......

 

 

Gee, I wish I knew that. Oh wait, I did know that.

Posted yesterday already.

17 hours ago, fygjam said:

RT-PCR is a DNA amplification process (the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an RNA virus but the RNA is converted to DNA because DNA is more stable. The conversion is the RT, reverse transcriptase, part).

PCR searches for small fragments of DNA which are unique to the virus. It keeps doubling the DNA each cycle (the chain reaction) so if there was only one copy of the desired fragment then after one cycle there would be 2 copies. After the next cycle 4 then 8, 16, 32...

I don't know about the UK but in the US the norm is to run to 40 cycles so the one fragment (if present) has been copied over a trillion times (1,099,511,627,776 times to be exact).

Again in the US, there are no hard rules but if viral DNA is detected at 25 cycles or less the person not only has the virus but is also infectious. Over 34 cycles and it is probably "viral litter" left over from an infection but there is no active virus.

 

Ya just gotta laugh...

Quote

But besides that, I agree there is no need for multiples postings of "youtube experts"

 

In the US, because of the high number of tests being carried out, you cannot get the CT. They run the PCR in batched of up to 960 samples. Run for 40 cycles and you're either positive of negative.

(Although a notable person in the US recently did get his CT. It was 34 at the time of testing although by then symptoms had set in and he was probably at the tail end of the infectious phase).

 

 

Some public health experts have pointed out months ago the problem with PCR and the CT and instead are advocating a "lick-a-stick" solution. A low cost antigen based swab which detects if you're infectious with SARS-CoV-2 or not. Authorities are yet to embrace lick-a-stick.

If you want to know more google "Michael Mina" with a Covid or SARS tag as well or you'll just find out about a celebrity chef.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...