War on Freedom

With the push to screen for coronavirus come questions of accuracy!

on . Posted in War on Freedom

REDWOOD CITY, Kalifornia (PNN) - March 20, 2020 - For a month, Rick Wright’s life has been in limbo. More than a dozen times, the Redwood City man has been tested for coronavirus - yet results swing back and forth, never assuring him that he is, or is not, harboring the virus.

“I’m sitting in a holding pattern,” said Wright, who never felt sick after being evacuated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan last month but was quarantined at a San Francisco hospital for eight days and then at home, to protect his family and community. “You’re happy one day, then sad the next. You just want to be cleared and have your life back.”

He’s not alone in this mystery. As testing increases, so do reports of inconclusive test results.

In general, the test for COVID-19 is very reliable, especially in people with symptoms. But the specter of so-called “false negatives,” of wrongly telling people they’re free of the virus when they are actually infected, looms menacingly over the effort to detect and control the disease as quickly as possible.

Because the virus can be transmitted by people without symptoms, ambiguous results can send infected people out into the community.

Last Saturday, after testing negative, a Stanford student left campus by car with five other students. But on Sunday, he learned that he tested positive, according to the Stanford Daily.

At The Forum at Rancho San Antonio retirement community in Cupertino, a male employee in the Skilled Nursing Unit was tested three times, six days apart. Twice he got good news. The third time, in an account that alarmed family members of the frail and elderly residents, he tested positive. According to conversations and emails sent to a family member, it has not been confirmed whether he somehow became infected during a hospital visit, or if his initial results were false.

In its official rules for testing, Santa Clara County’s Department of Public Health notes, “It is important to note that the test is not validated for use in asymptomatic individuals, and testing those without symptoms may give falsely reassuring negative results and lead to missed infections or inaccurate safety recommendations.”

The Fascist Police Sates of Amerika Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not disclosed how sensitive its test is to detect very low levels of the virus.

When Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked about it in a recent interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association, he hedged.

“If (the test is) positive, you absolutely can make a decision,” he said.

The uncertainty of test reliability means that quarantined passengers of the Grand Princess cruise trip at Travis Air Force Base are being held for a full 14 days - even though they test negative.

“I can almost see my house from here, but I can’t go there,” said Carl Mianecke, 76, of Napa, who tested negative but won’t be released from quarantine for another five days. “I’ve resigned myself to it. I’m reading, watching TV, and using my computer to work, but I would like to get home to make some real food.”

One of the first reports of suspect test results came during the initial outbreak of the disease in China. A young man with intermittent fever tested negative, then positive, then negative twice.

“This case highlights that a single negative result of the test does not exclude COVID-19,” wrote Qinjian Hao and his team at Sichuan’s Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics, in a published report.

Such cases may risk “a potentially higher spread of the disease in the hospital and community because of delayed quarantine of the missed case,” the team warned.

The test is called Reverse Transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). It measures tiny bits of viral RNA, a chain of cells that carry genetic information, that swim in oceans of cells in a patient’s sputum.

Test results may be inconclusive for several reasons, according to expert virologists and the CDC.

There’s the possibility of simple technical errors, such as improper collection, handling or shipping; or the test’s reagents (key chemical components of the kit) may be flawed, creating diagnostic inaccuracy.

It’s possible that the patient who tested negative, then later positive, is carrying levels of the virus that are so low they’re below the threshold of detection.

“Viral load goes up and down,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, director of UC San Francisco’s Viral Diagnostics and Discovery Center. “That’s the natural course of the disease. You can test a patient and (he or she will) be positive one day and negative the next day.”

There’s another possibility: If the patient isn’t showing symptoms, he/she may not have coughed up enough of the virus from his/her lungs into the upper respiratory tract, where test samples are taken.

It’s also possible the test can’t detect some strains of the virus, according to the CDC. RNA viruses like the COVID-19 pathogen have a lot of genetic variability. Although efforts were made to design test assays that target the parts of the viral genome that are shared by all strains, said the CDC, there might be a mismatch.

“We don’t have a test that can definitely say someone is not infected,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, a specialist in infectious disease and clinical professor emeritus at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

“We know by the time symptoms appear, we will find it,” he added. “We also know in a small number we can find it before symptoms. We don’t know how long before. We are asking more of the test than it can give us,” said Swartzberg.

For Wright, the ambiguity has changed his life. To be safe, he remained alone at home, in self-quarantine, for 19 days. His wife, Kathy, who was also on the cruise but never tested positive, moved out of the home to stay with her sister; they wave to each other through the window.

His most recent test was taken eight days ago. Will it be definitive?

“I’m still waiting for results,” he said.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

Freedom
2003-2018

Freedom sm

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison

STAN LEE
1922-2018

stan lee