(03-05-2021 10:47 AM)Danforth Wrote:  I thought this pandemic was supposed to end on Nov. 3rd?

If that would have happened the Dems wouldn't have been able to ram through a partisan $1.9trillion "Covid Relief" bill. It ended in Jan. 20th when the WHO turned down the Covid tests to lower the numbers. Keep up.

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-05-2021 10:47 AM)Danforth Wrote:  I thought this pandemic was supposed to end on Nov. 3rd?

...Jan. 20th when the WHO turned down the Covid tests to lower the numbers.

Link?

(03-08-2021 09:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-05-2021 10:47 AM)Danforth Wrote:  I thought this pandemic was supposed to end on Nov. 3rd?

...Jan. 20th when the WHO turned down the Covid tests to lower the numbers.

Link?

I don't say 'thank you' often....
But when I do....
You're Welcome
Released hours after the inauguration, but approved a week earlier.
WHO lowers Covid testing thresholds

Quote:Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

In other words if a person tests positive that doesn't show signs of illness, do another test. Also...

Quote:WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases

I thought there were no FALSE POSITIVES?

(03-08-2021 10:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I thought there were no FALSE POSITIVES?

Like any good commie his story changes as needed.

(03-08-2021 10:54 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 10:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I thought there were no FALSE POSITIVES?

Like any good commie his story changes as needed.

(03-08-2021 10:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-05-2021 10:47 AM)Danforth Wrote:  I thought this pandemic was supposed to end on Nov. 3rd?

...Jan. 20th when the WHO turned down the Covid tests to lower the numbers.

Link?

I don't say 'thank you' often....
But when I do....
You're Welcome
Released hours after the inauguration, but approved a week earlier.
WHO lowers Covid testing thresholds

Quote:Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

In other words if a person tests positive that doesn't show signs of illness, do another test. Also...

Quote:WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases

I thought there were no FALSE POSITIVES?

Okay...I remember now. This was already explained here awhile ago.

First, this was announced on January 13th. It's right there in your posted link.

Quote:Date: 13 January 2021

Next, this was not the WHO saying to lessen testing to lessen numbers. It was a clarification. Again, directly from your link:

Quote:Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Finally, it was providing guidance on how to correctly read test results.

Quote:Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Try again?

(03-08-2021 11:00 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 10:54 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 10:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I thought there were no FALSE POSITIVES?

Like any good commie his story changes as needed.

WTF are you idiots yammering about now?