PeterMP Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, twa said: My understanding is a reagent used in the original test kits had some quality control issues resulting in inconclusive results for some,but not all kits. identifying and correcting the issue was the delay, and the govt limiting other options used elsewhere. letting perfect be the enemy of the good is common in bureaucracy. What has been reported is that one of the sets of probes was bad. Essentially, they are using 3 different ways to determine if the viral genome is there and one of them was bad. I haven't seen specifics, but I'd guess they messed up the sequence some how. https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/diagnostics/Faulty-probes-blame-CDC-coronavirus/98/web/2020/02 "The part of the kit that isn’t working is a set of probes that tell laboratory personnel that a patient sample has any strain of coronavirus in it. It’s one of three sets of probes in the kit and is the least specific to SARS-CoV-2. The other two probes can, and have, detected the novel coronavirus both at the CDC and in public health labs, Wroblewski says." Oh, and I'll point out that it was the FDA that originally complained about the CDCs test preparation. Edited March 4, 2020 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 I have no idea what to think here in Socal. Got people telling me it's inevitable this thing spreads in large numbers and that schools will be shutting down soon for sure. Got others saying there's next to nothing to worry about. So, you know, I'm just washing my hands a lot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 37 minutes ago, PeterMP said: What has been reported is that one of the sets of probes was bad. Essentially, they are using 3 different ways to determine if the viral genome is there and one of them was bad. I haven't seen specifics, but I'd guess they messed up the sequence. https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/diagnostics/Faulty-probes-blame-CDC-coronavirus/98/web/2020/02 "The part of the kit that isn’t working is a set of probes that tell laboratory personnel that a patient sample has any strain of coronavirus in it. It’s one of three sets of probes in the kit and is the least specific to SARS-CoV-2. The other two probes can, and have, detected the novel coronavirus both at the CDC and in public health labs, Wroblewski says." Oh, and I'll point out that it was the FDA that originally complained about the CDCs test preparation. Quote The rollout of a CDC-designed test kit to state and local labs has become a fiasco because it contained a faulty reagent. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 You can tell all these briefing doctors have been told to remain calm. Dudes all sound like they snorted two bars of xanax. Sounds like they are all trying way too hard. Feels insincere. I think we got some rocky waters ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, twa said: "To make sure a test is working properly, kits also include DNA unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. The assay should not react to this negative control, but the CDC reagents did at many, but not all, state labs. The labs where the negative control failed were not allowed to use the test; they have to continue to send their samples to Atlanta." That sounds like an issue with those labs. Sounds like those labs had issues with contaminating their negative control with something that was positive (presumably the positive control, which the test also included) or contaminated their negative controls with DNA from somewhere else so that they got a "positive" result. That doesn't sound like a CDC issue. "Hahn replied that the CDC test could be modified to use just the primers that specifically detect SARS-CoV-2, essentially ignoring the faulty portion of the kits. FDA, in other words, would look the other way to make more widespread testing possible." This part seems inline with what C&E News is reporting and is more reasonable. Doing testing without a negative control is crazy and it is hard to believe the CDC or FDA would think that's a good idea. Doing testing without a less specific probe set that was supposed to, but doesn't test for other Coronoa viruses is much more reasonable. Ideally, you'd have something more general too in case the virus mutates, but certainly to get started it isn't a necessity. Edited March 4, 2020 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Because I can really put 2 and 2 together.... I just today realized that things like hand sanitizer/lysol wipes/bottled water/toilet paper might be in higher then normal demand. Had to buy this ****ing cosmetic brand hand sanitizer that was mad expensive because everything else is 100% sold out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) Edited March 4, 2020 by visionary 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 38 minutes ago, PeterMP said: "To make sure a test is working properly, kits also include DNA unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. The assay should not react to this negative control, but the CDC reagents did at many, but not all, state labs. The labs where the negative control failed were not allowed to use the test; they have to continue to send their samples to Atlanta." That sounds like an issue with those labs. Sounds like those labs had issues with contaminating their negative control with something that was positive (presumably the positive control, which the test also included) or contaminated their negative controls with DNA from somewhere else so that they got a "positive" result. That doesn't sound like a CDC issue. "Hahn replied that the CDC test could be modified to use just the primers that specifically detect SARS-CoV-2, essentially ignoring the faulty portion of the kits. FDA, in other words, would look the other way to make more widespread testing possible." This part seems inline with what C&E News is reporting and is more reasonable. Doing testing without a negative control is crazy and it is hard to believe the CDC or FDA would think that's a good idea. Doing testing without a less specific probe set that was supposed to, but doesn't test for other Coronoa viruses is much more reasonable. Ideally, you'd have something more general too in case the virus mutates, but certainly to get started it isn't a necessity. Quote https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/testing.html FDA issued the EUA on February 4, 2020. IRR began distribution of the test kits to states, but shortly thereafter performance issues were identified related to a problem in the manufacturing of one of the reagents which led to laboratories not being able to verify the test performance. CDC is remanufacturing the reagents with more robust quality control measures. it's all Greek to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Mooka said: Because I can really put 2 and 2 together.... I just today realized that things like hand sanitizer/lysol wipes/bottled water/toilet paper might be in higher then normal demand. Had to buy this ****ing cosmetic brand hand sanitizer that was mad expensive because everything else is 100% sold out. Good idea. I bought 2 extra cases of TP & a jug of soft soap...under normal conditions, at least a year's worth...just in case I have to stay home for a while. Bought extra coffee, sugar, chunky soups & other non- perishables. I read here a couple weeks ago about shortages in China because of the quarantines, so I went ahead & stocked up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, twa said: it's all Greek to me. Come on man, like that's ever stopped you before. 🤣 Lets hope that this thing loses some steam over the next week, or there's a step up on the treatment/medication front. I live in NC, we freak out over one inch of snow. I know it would get silly here in a hurry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Quote A handful of attendees at Trump’s campaign rally on Monday night in North Carolina told NBC News reporter Monica Alba they weren’t worried about the illness that has sickened at least 80,000 worldwide and killed about 3,000. Others said they doubted the novel coronavirus even exists. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-coronavirus-rally_n_5e5e785ec5b67ed38b3914ad?utm_source=politics_fb§ion=politics&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1rv0zoM5EDL0_vCqG5vh-yXfF_YuVWKkteM2W8aD4bN0q6RV-aSIkJTfg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/04/2-600-were-on-california-cruise-ship-with-patient-who-later-died-of-coronavirus-1265405 Quote 2,600 were on California cruise ship with patient who later died of coronavirus Edited March 5, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said: Come on man, like that's ever stopped you before. 🤣 Lets hope that this thing loses some steam over the next week, or there's a step up on the treatment/medication front. I live in NC, we freak out over one inch of snow. I know it would get silly here in a hurry. I'm going to go ahead and say that they aren't going to be able to control this quickly. That it isn't robuslty spread to nations that don't have the means to test, quarantine, and sanitation infrastructure to fight the spread of the virus well seems unlikely. That it isn't in parts of Africa, SE Asia, and South and Central America that have issues with all sorts of infection disease pretty regularly They think they just have the latest Ebola outbreak in Africa under control and Ebola is much easier to control than this virus. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/drc-ebola-patient-discharged-outbreak-sight-200304130826905.html Without an international effort to help those countries (that seems exceedingly unlikely in this era of "us first" nationalism) that this virus hasn't/won't establish a permanent presence in human in the absence of a vaccine seems very unlikely to me. I'm highly doubtful this thing is all over the US west coast and only in 5 people in Mexico. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/mexico-has-5-cases-of-coronavirus/1752272 Treatments seem like they might get better for the very sick and high risk. It does seem like some of the anti-virals we have would work against this. We know somethings that we have now work against SARS even if they weren't initially created to treat SARS. Assuming the death rate is 2% with treatment that number could be driven down. Edited March 5, 2020 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Thread: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 You have to consider the lag time on these reports. For example, there are reports of 3 people in NYC with the virus. That means they have probably had it for up to two weeks and how many people have they spread it to? The scientific models on this stuff are pretty scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Hmm. That's one way for Snyder to spin an empty Fed-Ex field. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now