New York Times: ‘up to 90 percent’ of positive COVID cases don’t need to isolate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest

New York Times: ‘up to 90 percent’ of positive COVID cases don’t need to isolate​

‘The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus,’ the newspaper reported.

Fri Sep 11, 2020

By Martin Bürger

NEW YORK, September 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a finding that could have an enormous impact on lockdowns, social distancing, and mask wearing, The New York Times reported that “up to 90 percent of people testing positive (for COVID-19) carried barely any virus,” and thus are “not likely to be contagious.”

“The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus,” the newspaper wrote on August 29.

The commonly used PCR tests, the article explained, amplify “genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.”

However, doctors aren’t told about the number of cycles needed to identify the viral load. One patient could be highly contagious, whereas another is not likely to spread the virus at all – the doctor doesn’t know and is unable to act accordingly.

“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus,” . . . .

. . . .“Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk – akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left,” one doctor argued. . .

If “up to 90 percent” of coronavirus cases are not actually contagious, the measures implemented by governors across the United States are called into question. . . .

. . . . Governors generally look at the number of new cases to determine their course of action in easing or reinforcing lockdowns. The state of California, for instance, considers less than four daily cases per 100,000 people in any given county to be “moderate” risk level. Four to seven cases are categorized as “substantial,” and the risk level is deemed “widespread” as soon as more than seven people get a positive test result on any given day.

At a “widespread” risk level, many non-essential indoor business operations are closed, the official website explained. Most of the state is categorized at that level, and indoor church services, among other things, are officially prohibited. . . .

. . . The large number of positive tests increased fear in the population. However, beyond The New York Times’ findings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 94 percent of cases of death linked to COVID-19, other “health conditions and contributing causes” were present, as well.

“For 6 percent of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. . . .
Click to expand...
 
The headline is deceptive, in my view. Lifesite News has a drum to beat and is not an impartial media outlet.
 
Nepperhan said:
The headline is deceptive, in my view. Lifesite News has a drum to beat and is not an impartial media outlet.
Click to expand...
from the times
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
Click to expand...
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
Click to expand...
 
Nepperhan said:
The headline is deceptive, in my view.
Click to expand...
The headline is right-on.

.

@upant via the Times . . . .
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
Click to expand...
.

Nepperhan. Did you read the article? Not only is the headline correct but they explain WHY too.
 
Last edited:
Liz Wheeler (who is excellent) from OAN frequently has shows titled: “What the MSM Was Afraid to Tell You” this week.

It is not “absolute” in the sense that the MSM is completely hiding these facts from it’s viewers (but pretty close sometimes).

Rather it is what does not fit their leftist narrative so they are often doing things like shadow banning that information, neglect to put it up on their front web pages, etc.

This article by the New York Times is obviously not hidden for example (but the leftists do not like admitting these uncomfortable facts).

Here is the recent excellent show Wheeler did on this issue in part . . . .

.

Bombshell Report: 90% of Positive COVID-19 Tests Should Be Negative​

194,432 views

Sep 2, 2020
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
To me, the final question/problem is…which 90%? Is it possible or likely that the number of cycles for active cases vs. inactive cases are known? Then, if we have the cycles that are active cases, should doctors be demanding to know the cycle count? Do cycle counts vary per run for active cases (I think they do). So, should the cutoffs for each run be determined so we can fine tune the reports to better inform the doctors.

So many further questions arise!
 
PattyIt. Great points PattyIt.

We are still figuring this stuff out aren’t we?

One nice thing. We will be better equipped regarding influenza too in the future in my opinion (much of this knowledge we are acquiring in virology regarding corona virus infections, will have carry-over value to other viral infections as well).
 
Did you read about Australia having its mildest flu season in years? The distancing and masks have had the side benefit of a very mild flu season as well! I’m looking forward to that happening here as well…at least in my neck of the prairie. We are rather conservative but pretty obedient in wearing our masks! Oh, and flu shots are just starting to become available. If you’re able…get the shot!
 
The thing you are ignoring Leaf is sometimes it’s neither (infection or contagion).

You can also breath up proverbial viral “body parts” of dissolving virions from an infected person or a formerly infected person.

Those “dead body parts” can be enough to set off a test if you amplify the PCR enough.

Those patients are not infected, nor are they contagious.

Is it 90% because that is the theoretical value?

Yes.

Is it the practical percentage too?

Almost certainly no. But then again, you have to read it, and think through it to come to the correct aspect.

If they would have said 50%, people would be criticizing LifeSite for not saying 90%.

These are invalid criticisms.

I stand by LifeSite (and The New York Times and Liz Wheeler) here.

What’s entertaining is how your article attempts to clear the NYT but indict the conservatives (OANN, Wheeler [separating from OANN but they hide that from you. It looks like they are getting more conservatives that way doesn’t it?], Deace, TheBlaze).

It was especially entertaining to see them put up Liz Wheeler, Steve Deace, etc. names,then link to THEMSELVES. Too funny.

(But fear not! I have Liz Wheeler’s item above.)

The “objections” are political Leaf and I can see right through that
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
To me, the final question/problem is…which 90%? Is it possible or likely that the number of cycles for active cases vs. inactive cases are known? Then, if we have the cycles that are active cases, should doctors be demanding to know the cycle count? Do cycle counts vary per run for active cases (I think they do). So, should the cutoffs for each run be determined so we can fine tune the reports to better inform the doctors.

So many further questions arise!
Click to expand...
Yes these questions popped into my head. However where the article states “With that in mind, protests against mask mandates, mandatory vaccines, church closures, and business lockdowns appear to be very reasonable acts.” - I would go the opposite way and say with that in mind treat everyone as though they are contagious until such times the distinction between contagious and non contagious can be determined.
 
Motherwit said:
would go the opposite way and say with that in mind treat everyone as though they are contagious until such times the distinction between contagious and non contagious can be determined.
Click to expand...
I worked in a hospital lab for over 27 years. When HIV entered the picture, the rule became…treat every specimen as though it is HIV positive. Every single one! The patients we had to do phlebotomy on…same rule. Gloves, lab coats and eye protection. Needle sticks are common for lab workers plus we have to treat the analyzers as contagious, too as they puncture the tubes.

It’s good lab practice and wearing masks in public, distancing and hand washing are just good practices as well. Assume everyone is a super carrier!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top