Claude_Verret

I guess if you consider government bureaucracy and red tape that always exists within these agencies to be political. Nevertheless, the initial failure was not even a failure of bureaucracy, but with kit reagents that were contaminated. How they dealt with that initial problem was where they got bogged down even more. I've actually dealt with the CDC in developing an influenza test with my former company. The regulations and red tape we had to deal with from the CDC dwarfed the corporate bureaucracy we typically dealt with.

Here you go..an explanation of what happened with the test kits without politics. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615323/why-the-cdc-botched-its-coronavirus-testing/

This article provides a good overview of what went on with the CDC diagnostic kit. RT-PCR in particular is extremely sensitive to contaminants throughout the entire chain..from reagent manufacturing all the way to improper procedures employed by an untrained or sloppy end user. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615323/why-the-cdc-botched-its-coronavirus-testing/

Well there's a difference. That is the number of confirmed (presumably by PCR) cases worldwide. Certainly the number of people who have or had and have recovered from covid19 is much, much higher. Another difference from the diagnostic perspective ....if you show up at your doctor with flu like symptoms you can be tested at the point of care by a rapid immunodiagnostic that all doctors offices have, a small portion of these positive patients will have samples sent to regional surveillance labs where further diagnostics are performed. This is how the CDC compiles their weekly influenza surveillance reporting. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/fluactivitysurv.htm There is currently no such rapid point of care diagnostic for covid19, therefore all samples need to be sent out to public health labs for testing. Even if we did have the millions of tests that were promised the throughput on this type of testing is quite low. PCR needs to be conducted by highly trained scientists, in a well controlled lab workflow environment using specialized instruments. I can easily see the next phase in the diagnostic debacle being complaints about long time to result as labs become inundated with samples to test. Here is a copy of the official CDC covid-19 testing protocol to give people an idea of how labor intensive it is. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

My background is developing diagnostic tests, some of which have been for influenza and have been PCR based so I'm most qualified to opine on that aspect. However, any scientist can tell you that if you follow the scientific method then you don't reach conclusions based on incomplete data. You can make educated guesses and design new studies based on preliminary data, but you can't say that this will be any milder or worse than the flu until the data is collected. We are seeing way too many definitive conclusions based on an incomplete and constantly changing data set is all I'm saying. There are also so many confounding factors based on the early data we do have. In south Korea for example, where they have a similar healthcare infrastructure to ours and have completed more widespread testing, the mortality rate seems to be much lower than other areas...based on the early data. In China, a significantly higher percentage of the male population are smokers compared to western nations...any early data, as suspicious as it may be, has to be looked at through that prism. The well documented lack of early diagnostic testing in this country also hampers our ability to get a clearer early picture of what is transpiring. There are antiviral compounds being developed that might be fast tracked that could end up lowering the mortality rate. I read a study recently about a physician in China who used plasma transfused to sick patients from covid19 recovered patients as a form of passive immunization that improved outcomes. It's all evolving in real time and we won't know the final answer until it's all said and done. Therefore all that can be done is to follow the basic hygiene principles that you've heard over and over and put in place some of the social distancing measures that we are currently seeing and to not claim to know things that the data won't let us say that we know just yet.

Any doctor or scientist who is telling you that covid19 is a more or less serious disease than the flu at this point in time is not correct. The scientific truth continues to be we dont know yet, and on a scientific level we wont know until all the reliable data is gathered and analyzed. I think the main problem is not that people dont trust the scientific experts, although there will always he a good measure of that, it's with people making definitive statements (doctors and scientists in included) based on incomplete data, like we are seeing everywhere now. As a a pandemic, thiis could end up being much worse, the same or milder than H1N1pdm09. We simply wont know until we know. I'm continuing to look towards the experts who tell us to follow all the prudent steps based on what is known about respiratory viruses in general, who at the same time refrain from making definitive statements about covid19 based on incomplete and constantly evolving data.

Reading further into the CDC test kit rollout failures seems to me to be a typical government red tape failure. Apparently the original test kits had a bad negative control included in them. In other words, the nucleic acid control they included in the test kits were giving positive results which will render all patient samples tested on that PCR plate invalid. The CDC had published the PCR primers included in the kits which would allow many public health labs to "homebrew" their own test kits, however it appears that at least initially the CDC/FDA did not allow this to happen. For example, most labs would almost certainly have purified influenza or non COVID-19 coronavirus RNA on hand that could be employed as a negative control. Pairing such a negative control with the published primers that can be easily synthesized, a working diagnostic test could have been quickly rolled out by individual labs while the CDC worked on its manufacturing troubleshooting.

Remember when Afinogenov showed up to play in an Alabama rec league when his girlfriend the tennis pro was playing there? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8CnFYWgwQU

Sorry for the delay. Diagnostic tests for respiratory viruses are typically performed on nasal/throat swab samples. The CDC recently fast tracked a coronavirus RT-PCR kit around the typical FDA approval process. PCR based kits are very sensitive as they amplify genetic material (RNA in this case) specific to markers in the coronavirus genome. I'm not familiar with the life cycle of coronavirus, but if as reported there is a long asymptomatic latency period, this highly sensitive test will continue to keep asymptomatic patients under quarantine. I imagine that the Chinese have a test based on the same PCR technology, but I have heard reports that supplies are running low. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0206-coronavirus-diagnostic-test-kits.html Edit: Googling around a bit more about these tests it seems that the tests are suffering from quite a bit of false negative results. There could be several explanations for this, but in my experience developing PCR tests for flu, poor sample collection technique, specimen collection media or non optimized primers would be the first things I'd look at. Especially with a test that was fast tracked and not quite ready for prime time. The primers would be the first thing I'd look at, these are short nucleic acid sequences that flank either side or the viral genetic code that you wish to amplify. The amplified material when present above a certain threshold is used to call positive patient samples. Quite often these will work fine in the lab, but in a real world scenario performance can suffer. Thus its not surprising there are issues with a test that was not put through the normal regulatory paces.

If the Sabres are a cup competitive team, count me among the fans who would give zero f$%@! if our goalie is wearing a puke colored mask, complete with chunks.

The Netflix docuseries Pandemic came out a few weeks ago before the current coronavirus outbreak, so it's well timed. Speaking as a former practicing virologist, I thought it was very well done and covers the pandemic threat from many angles..historical, surveillance, hospital preparedness, vaccine research etc. As much as I agree that the modern media are usually fanning the flames of hysteria with some of these outbreaks, we cannot afford to let our guard down. The series starts with a researcher who is mapping a mass grave from the 1918 flu pandemic in New Jersey I believe. There were many mass graves all over this country and around the world during that time. 500 million infected and 50 million dead worldwide from the 1918 spanish flu. It's likely not a question of if, but when we see something similar.

Yep, and if the CDC announced today that a coronavirus vaccine is available, how long would the lines be?

RIP

Amen! If you can’t have a good time blasting “Tom Sawyer,” then some awesome part of you has withered. I say, raise a joint to Neil Peart tonight, and go get it back. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/culture/postscript/the-misfit-awesomeness-of-neil-peart-and-rush/amp

If you had felt compelled to reply to the post...most consecutive gold/platinum albums: 1. Beatles 2. Rolling Stones 3. Rush I understand how people dont like or "get" Rush, I really do. Geds voice is unique to say the least. What I will never understand is the steadfast unwillingness of some who absolutely refuse to acknowledge their musicianship, longevity and above all the massive influence that they had on countless rock musicians who followed them. As someone said in the Rush documentary Beyond The Lighted Stage made circa 2010 (currently still on Netflix btw)..."if you cant give Rush their due at this point (35 years in), then you're just being a dick."

Haven't watched any Sabres in 6 weeks and I just turned on the game 10 minutes ago only to see 2 straight Canuck goals. In the words of the Professor.. Plus ca change Plus c'est la meme chose

https://buffalonews.com/2020/01/10/exit-the-warrior-neil-peart-1952-2020/

Statement from the band. It is with broken hearts and the deepest sadness that we must share the terrible news that on Tuesday our friend, soul brother and band mate of over 45 years, Neil, has lost his incredibly brave three and a half year battle with brain cancer (Glioblastoma). We ask that friends, fans, and media alike understandably respect the family’s need for privacy and peace at this extremely painful and difficult time. Those wishing to express their condolences can choose a cancer research group or charity of their choice and make a donation in Neil Peart's name. Rest in peace brother. Neil Peart September 12, 1952 - January 7, 2020

And they both somehow managed to keep their battles with terminal illness private. Difficult to do these days.

Shocked and stunned. The author of the beats and words that were the soundtrack of my youth and into adulthood. RIP Professor.

The Bills losing because they got outplayed and the refs being ***** to the benefit of the Pats* are not mutually exclusive concepts. Both can be true. Also, just because one can point to examples of the Bills getting bad calls that benefit them doesn't mean teams like the Pats* dont benefit more often and many times in crucial game changing situations. Furthermore, acknowledging that the Pats* do indeed on balance benefit more from bad/missed calls does not mean that someone is buying into some grand conspiracy theory that the NFL is out to get the Bills. When teams that are dominant year and and year out play teams that have been largely irrelevant for a very long time, theres a natural human tendency and bias towards making calls that benefit the non irrelevant team.