Exactly this. It's not that SARS-CoV-2 is the common cold (it's not; colds are caused by a variety of things from coronaviruses--around 20%--to rhinoviruses), it's that the IgG/IgM tests can't differentiate between it.
That means that all the estimates they've done based on previous penetration of this virus are completely untrustworthy. So this idea that there's as many as 10x the number of people who are positive based on antibody assays is almost certainly bunk. We have no way of knowing.
That means it's not an admission this is less serious than they're claiming. It's that they're actively lying to us about either the extent of the virus and its spread, its infectiousness, or both.
Thank you, this is the best explanation posted so far. I was going to post something similar.
Depending on the source, 15-25% of common colds worldwide are caused by one of four coronaviruses that have become endemic in the human population (there are more, but they don't affect people). I don't remember the origin, but they have mutated to the point that they are mostly benign.
10-40% of colds (again, depends on the cited source) are caused by a rhinovirus. 20% are caused by RSV or parainfluenza (which is different than influenza, but can be severe). Another 20-30% are caused by an unidentified virus.
If you had a cold "recently" and it was caused by a coronavirus, it MAY have conferred some amount of immunity to COVID-19 (and may be one of the factors on the severity of your illness). And as the previous comment says: the similarity between COVID-19 and a common cold coronavirus may result in a falsely positive COVID-19 antibody test.
But, I don't think anyone is intentionally lying, other than perhaps the Misleadia. The people doing these tests and compiling the data know and understand the limitations. But, by the time it makes it to CNN, it's trumpeted to uninformed viewers (on CNN, that's all of them) without the qualifiers.
The number of death young than 18 years old of influenza during 2018 is 634.
The number of Covid death is 414 for those younger than 25 years old.
The number of Covid death is 746 for those younger than 35 years old.
You know how ridiculous to not open the k-12 schools and the colleges because of the safety of the students.
You know how ridiculous to say that we cannot open the school because of the safety of teachers only make up for a fraction of the school services and can be simply replaced by younger teachers.
health authorities are trying to kill as many of us as possible. And they're doing a damn good job of it. Over 135,000 that they claim died due to CCPvirus, did not have to die, statistically speaking. Now of course we have no idea how far off their reported numbers are but still, you're talking a minimum of 95% of those who died being preventable.
Notice this is different from people working in healthcare; I don't believe they actively try to kill their patients. It's the authorities, many layers of bureaucracy above them. It was perfectly obvious to me when the antibody test results first came out that they had no way of knowing if antibodies they found were specific to this virus. If I can know that, they certainly did!
They feed the misleadia disinformation, and it's not because they want to save lives. None of this is about public health
I think people make the mistake of assuming health care professions are unbiased robots who don’t have personal agendas or emotions. I’m sure there are many people in various walks of health care who secretly want this to be bad so they achieve political wins both legislatively and at the polls.
As I mentioned before, the RT-PCR tests are pretty accurate since they match specific RNA sequences in the virus. That much certainly isn't in question.
What is in question is how they're representing the antibody assays.
The problem I have isn't so much with the labs or the workers who are testing. It's in the bureaucracy. We know that a number of these counties/cities/hospitals are hurting for money. If they can find a way to pad their COVID-19 patient count, and get money for it, there's almost no way to guarantee that they won't.
That's wherein the rub lies.
Suffice to say I don't trust, e.g., NY.
It's not just limited to COVID either. I know of someone who went to hospital, was diagnosed with something fairly minor, and they were trying to push an expensive surgical intervention because they're hurting for cash right now. He declined.
Knowing this, I get really surprised to hear somebody get negative result. It is actually very difficult to get negative result unless you've never had any cold-like symptoms. I've had at least 4-5 times I felt like I had a cold because I got some coughs and sinus annoyance since November or something. I got a cold last November which lasted for a few weeks, and had some symptoms 3-4 times since the end of March, which went away in a few or even next day.
I will be surprised to see if I have negative now. I should get positive if I take the test.
The sad thing is that the RT-PCR tests are fairly accurate because they match a specific sequence of the viral RNA.
If they're combining questionable IgG/IgM testing to pad the positive results, this is a travesty because it means nothing is trustworthy at this point. They're tossing science out with the baby and the bathwater.
Because of that and what you described, I'd imagine two outcomes: If they're just using a RT-PCR test, you'll probably turn up negative. If they're using the antibody assay, you'll probably turn up positive.
Bonus third outcome: If they need money, you'll turn up positive.
I have a cold at the moment (as do my two kids) and got tested a week ago. All three of us came back negative and it only took three days to get the results. I was honestly rather surprised.
I want to say that the way cases were counted changed to consider every positive antibody test as a new case. They were in essence counting COVID cases that very well could have been someone coming into contact with any given coronavirus, in that case.
As I mentioned to another poster, the RT-PCR tests are pretty accurate. If what has been posted here is true about the antibody tests, then they're deliberately muddying the water to pad results.
Exactly this. It's not that SARS-CoV-2 is the common cold (it's not; colds are caused by a variety of things from coronaviruses--around 20%--to rhinoviruses), it's that the IgG/IgM tests can't differentiate between it.
That means that all the estimates they've done based on previous penetration of this virus are completely untrustworthy. So this idea that there's as many as 10x the number of people who are positive based on antibody assays is almost certainly bunk. We have no way of knowing.
That means it's not an admission this is less serious than they're claiming. It's that they're actively lying to us about either the extent of the virus and its spread, its infectiousness, or both.
Thank you, this is the best explanation posted so far. I was going to post something similar.
Depending on the source, 15-25% of common colds worldwide are caused by one of four coronaviruses that have become endemic in the human population (there are more, but they don't affect people). I don't remember the origin, but they have mutated to the point that they are mostly benign.
10-40% of colds (again, depends on the cited source) are caused by a rhinovirus. 20% are caused by RSV or parainfluenza (which is different than influenza, but can be severe). Another 20-30% are caused by an unidentified virus.
If you had a cold "recently" and it was caused by a coronavirus, it MAY have conferred some amount of immunity to COVID-19 (and may be one of the factors on the severity of your illness). And as the previous comment says: the similarity between COVID-19 and a common cold coronavirus may result in a falsely positive COVID-19 antibody test.
But, I don't think anyone is intentionally lying, other than perhaps the Misleadia. The people doing these tests and compiling the data know and understand the limitations. But, by the time it makes it to CNN, it's trumpeted to uninformed viewers (on CNN, that's all of them) without the qualifiers.
The people that set the regulations such that any death "with COVID" is a death from COVID seem to be intentionally lying, right?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-deaths-by-age-group/
The number of death young than 18 years old of influenza during 2018 is 634. The number of Covid death is 414 for those younger than 25 years old. The number of Covid death is 746 for those younger than 35 years old.
You know how ridiculous to not open the k-12 schools and the colleges because of the safety of the students.
You know how ridiculous to say that we cannot open the school because of the safety of teachers only make up for a fraction of the school services and can be simply replaced by younger teachers.
And it will a generational scale negative impact.
The public school system needs to torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Refusing to open just hastens their demise. They have checkmated themselves.
The criteria for listing COVID-19 as a contributing cause to death in my state precludes cases that only tested positive for it.
In your state, your mileage may vary. If so, you are wasting your breath complaining to me.
Not complaining to you. Not asking what they do in your state. I'm asking a question about what you said. Will you answer it?
I agree with you on all but point:
health authorities are trying to kill as many of us as possible. And they're doing a damn good job of it. Over 135,000 that they claim died due to CCPvirus, did not have to die, statistically speaking. Now of course we have no idea how far off their reported numbers are but still, you're talking a minimum of 95% of those who died being preventable.
Notice this is different from people working in healthcare; I don't believe they actively try to kill their patients. It's the authorities, many layers of bureaucracy above them. It was perfectly obvious to me when the antibody test results first came out that they had no way of knowing if antibodies they found were specific to this virus. If I can know that, they certainly did!
They feed the misleadia disinformation, and it's not because they want to save lives. None of this is about public health
I think people make the mistake of assuming health care professions are unbiased robots who don’t have personal agendas or emotions. I’m sure there are many people in various walks of health care who secretly want this to be bad so they achieve political wins both legislatively and at the polls.
Well wanting it to be bad also glorifies their job, and possibly their pay. So yeah there's all that.
As I mentioned before, the RT-PCR tests are pretty accurate since they match specific RNA sequences in the virus. That much certainly isn't in question.
What is in question is how they're representing the antibody assays.
The problem I have isn't so much with the labs or the workers who are testing. It's in the bureaucracy. We know that a number of these counties/cities/hospitals are hurting for money. If they can find a way to pad their COVID-19 patient count, and get money for it, there's almost no way to guarantee that they won't.
That's wherein the rub lies.
Suffice to say I don't trust, e.g., NY.
It's not just limited to COVID either. I know of someone who went to hospital, was diagnosed with something fairly minor, and they were trying to push an expensive surgical intervention because they're hurting for cash right now. He declined.
Knowing this, I get really surprised to hear somebody get negative result. It is actually very difficult to get negative result unless you've never had any cold-like symptoms. I've had at least 4-5 times I felt like I had a cold because I got some coughs and sinus annoyance since November or something. I got a cold last November which lasted for a few weeks, and had some symptoms 3-4 times since the end of March, which went away in a few or even next day.
I will be surprised to see if I have negative now. I should get positive if I take the test.
The sad thing is that the RT-PCR tests are fairly accurate because they match a specific sequence of the viral RNA.
If they're combining questionable IgG/IgM testing to pad the positive results, this is a travesty because it means nothing is trustworthy at this point. They're tossing science out with the baby and the bathwater.
Because of that and what you described, I'd imagine two outcomes: If they're just using a RT-PCR test, you'll probably turn up negative. If they're using the antibody assay, you'll probably turn up positive.
Bonus third outcome: If they need money, you'll turn up positive.
I have a cold at the moment (as do my two kids) and got tested a week ago. All three of us came back negative and it only took three days to get the results. I was honestly rather surprised.
Well shit. Gotta fix this too.
I want to say that the way cases were counted changed to consider every positive antibody test as a new case. They were in essence counting COVID cases that very well could have been someone coming into contact with any given coronavirus, in that case.
That's nuts, I think.
As I mentioned to another poster, the RT-PCR tests are pretty accurate. If what has been posted here is true about the antibody tests, then they're deliberately muddying the water to pad results.