|
|
Post by Jolly on May 7, 2020 1:41:41 GMT
One in North Louisiana, one in Acadiana...Both patients presented to the ED of their local hospital with typical COVID-19 symptoms. Both patients were eventually put on the vent, both patients expired.
Both patients had multiple COVID-19 tests, by more than one laboratory. All tests were negative.
Final autopsy results are pending. CDC is involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozarks Tom on May 7, 2020 2:03:26 GMT
What are the odds that multiple labs would have defective tests? Something just doesn't make sense here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on May 7, 2020 10:43:26 GMT
What are the odds that multiple labs would have defective tests? Something just doesn't make sense here. Hence, the CDC. Let's hope this is just a million monkeys banging away at typewriters and producing Shakespeare. That it is actually multiple bad tests. That gives us a problem, but maybe not the problem of a mutation so different, that the test does not pick it up. |
|
|
|
Post by themotherhen on May 9, 2020 19:01:55 GMT
That's scary. Nicodemus and his girl have both been sick, high fevers, SOB, cough, no appetite. Chelsea still managed chicken broth but Nicodemus hasn't been hungry at all. That's scarier than the fever, that boy always can eat!
ETA:Chelsea tested negative too.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEKE on May 9, 2020 19:28:59 GMT
That's scary. Nicodemus and his girl have both been sick, high fevers, SOB,
I get it that you are frustrated with your son being sick, but that is no way to talk about him!
|
|
|
|
Post by themotherhen on May 9, 2020 19:51:40 GMT
That's scary. Nicodemus and his girl have both been sick, high fevers, SOB,
I get it that you are frustrated with your son being sick, but that is no way to talk about him!
Lol |
|
|
|
Post by joebill on May 21, 2020 0:04:14 GMT
I saw on the tube one doc claim they had a run of 19 patients all testing negative but he and the other docs were confident they all had CV-19.
That being the case, why bother testing? Sounds like somebody high up is getting paid by the test and the tests are really ones designed to check for pregnancy or strep throat.
When the bull crap reaches a certain depth, nothing to do but seek higher ground......Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on May 21, 2020 0:31:00 GMT
There are some things at play...
1. If doctors get a negative on a patient they really think has the virus, they'll repeat the rest on a different platform.
2. Some patients will test negative on multiple platforms. Some think it falls on differences in when they are tested, with maybe a false negative at first and too much time between the first and second. Stay tuned in this one...
|
|
|
|
Post by themotherhen on May 21, 2020 0:34:04 GMT
I saw on the tube one doc claim they had a run of 19 patients all testing negative but he and the other docs were confident they all had CV-19. That being the case, why bother testing? Sounds like somebody high up is getting paid by the test and the tests are really ones designed to check for pregnancy or strep throat. When the bull crap reaches a certain depth, nothing to do but seek higher ground......Joe Asher is convinced that there's no infection at all. I told him that we know people who are taking care of sick patients who have it and he said "what if the tests just test for something that everyone has, like blood glucose?" I don't know what to think. He loves all things medicine related, the kid asked for Gray's Anatomy for his 10th birthday. The book, not the series on TV 😉. |
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on May 21, 2020 1:34:19 GMT
There are some things at play... 1. If doctors get a negative on a patient they really think has the virus, they'll repeat the rest on a different platform. 2. Some patients will test negative on multiple platforms. Some think it falls on differences in when they are tested, with maybe a false negative at first and too much time between the first and second. Stay tuned in this one... This study is 10 years old but if I surmised it correctly, the bottom line is the tests are useful in tracking general trends but not for assuring individual accuracy. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185851/As you say, there are multiple variables that can yield false results. One that hasn't been discussed is testing masses of people particularly in these drive-thru lots, which isn't an ideal clinical setting. Unless gloves are changed between samples, wouldn't it be easy to spread one positive result to the next 10 or 20 samples collected? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 2:47:47 GMT
I saw on the tube one doc claim they had a run of 19 patients all testing negative but he and the other docs were confident they all had CV-19. That being the case, why bother testing? Sounds like somebody high up is getting paid by the test and the tests are really ones designed to check for pregnancy or strep throat. When the bull crap reaches a certain depth, nothing to do but seek higher ground......Joe Asher is convinced that there's no infection at all. I told him that we know people who are taking care of sick patients who have it and he said "what if the tests just test for something that everyone has, like blood glucose?" I don't know what to think. He loves all things medicine related, the kid asked for Gray's Anatomy for his 10th birthday. The book, not the series on TV 😉. That's a good budding conspiracy theorist you've got there. I've mused about similar ideas. But of course you still have to account for the symptoms. Those sick people have something wrong with them, right? What's causing them to be sick? 5G cell signals? Poison? |
|
|
|
Post by TxGal on May 21, 2020 3:26:29 GMT
Asher is convinced that there's no infection at all. I told him that we know people who are taking care of sick patients who have it and he said "what if the tests just test for something that everyone has, like blood glucose?" I don't know what to think. He loves all things medicine related, the kid asked for Gray's Anatomy for his 10th birthday. The book, not the series on TV 😉. That's a good budding conspiracy theorist you've got there. I've mused about similar ideas. But of course you still have to account for the symptoms. Those sick people have something wrong with them, right? What's causing them to be sick? 5G cell signals? Poison? As long as we're talking conspiracy theories, I've wondered if it is not a hyper immune response to the flu itself by those who have had a flu shot. I've read that there is new 4 in 1 flu shot this season. I think it'd be interesting to see the numbers of who has had the flu shot AND contracted C19. |
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on May 21, 2020 13:23:28 GMT
There are some things at play... 1. If doctors get a negative on a patient they really think has the virus, they'll repeat the rest on a different platform. 2. Some patients will test negative on multiple platforms. Some think it falls on differences in when they are tested, with maybe a false negative at first and too much time between the first and second. Stay tuned in this one... This study is 10 years old but if I surmised it correctly, the bottom line is the tests are useful in tracking general trends but not for assuring individual accuracy. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185851/As you say, there are multiple variables that can yield false results. One that hasn't been discussed is testing masses of people particularly in these drive-thru lots, which isn't an ideal clinical setting. Unless gloves are changed between samples, wouldn't it be easy to spread one positive result to the next 10 or 20 samples collected? I had to go get a cup of ☕ to wade through the paper, but here's what it said...The nucleic amplification tests (RT-PCR in the case of the corona virus) are better than the other types of tests in terms of specificity and sensitivity. They have the disadvantage of slower TAT and inability to be done in most POC settings. It also talked about collection methods...True story...Several years ago, we had a hard time getting our hands on RSV test kits, but pedi guys will order those tests like eating Chiclets once they get a couple of positives. For the most part, you treat RSV and non-RSV upper respiratory problems in kids the same, so we required a NP wash rather than a NP swab for the procedure. The wash is the best specimen (as discussed in the study), but it's a PITA to do, for both patient and collector. Test orders dropped markedly. Back to collection and PCR...As with any test, GIGO. Most errors in testing occur in the pre-analytical phase, rather than the analytical phase, assuming you have a good test. Most of the COVID PCR tests use a common viral media that we use for many different viral tests. Some labs like it frozen after collection, but refrigerated or on ice is just fine. Ideally, you would change gloves between patients and I hope the collectors do. But I have to admit, I've seen some shoddy infection control procedures from caregivers over the length of my career and this time is no different. I do think the risk of specimen contamination is rather low, given how deep you have to swab, the type of flocked swab used and the immediate transferral to the viral media. One of the biggest problems I have seen is not in the reporting of tests, but the loss of specimens. The small town hospital where I still do some PRN work, referred tests to Quest, which kicked them to their own in Los Angeles. With 40,000+ vials hitting the counter in that lab everyday, we got back a lot of QNS reports. The viral transport media is a fixed amount, so the QNS was just labspeak for "lost". Things got better when a new Quest site in Arlington opened up. Things got a lot better when we quit using Quest and started using Mayo. The Louisiana Public Health guys were good about not losing tests, but had very slow TAT, and we're super-picky about paperwork and labeling requirements...typical bureaucracy at work. Their TAT has improved drastically, but it took a direct behind the scenes threat from the governor's office (Louisiana may have the most powerful governor's office in America, a legacy of Huey P. Long). We now send any admit patient testing to them. |
|
