Is there any good news in the fight against COVID-19?

[Ver hut gazugt]

Can we get some cross examination on the Israeli cure they report to have discovered?
The nasal spray one.
Is it being pear reviewed and brought to the worlds attention?
All I read was one Israeli article that said it cured all the people who took it- all of whom were seriously ill.

They are doing furthers studies now. Will probably take a while till this findings comes out.

[AsherO]

They are doing furthers studies now. Will probably take a while till this findings comes out.

Source?

[Barryg]

That's an immense (60%+?) drop for just over 1 month, no?

It's hard to find info on it but I've heard of reports that the CT threshold was reduced from 42 or 45 to 35 in many Covid tests around Jan 7th or Jan 21st. I looked to find something to quote to answer your question and found this https://sentinelksmo.org/kdhe-quietly-reduced-cycle-threshold-on-covid-tests/
No idea as to the truth about this and yes it's political - but I don't know in which direction.

[PlatinumGuy]

It's hard to find info on it but I've heard of reports that the CT threshold was reduced from 42 or 45 to 35 in many Covid tests around Jan 7th or Jan 21st. I looked to find something to quote to answer your question and found this https://sentinelksmo.org/kdhe-quietly-reduced-cycle-threshold-on-covid-tests/
No idea as to the truth about this and yes it's political - but I don't know in which direction.

Doesn't the drop in cases correspond to hospitalizations and deaths?

I  also find it incredibly hard to believe a CT threshold is responsible for more 10% of cases at the very most (3% if I had to guess)

[AsherO]

It's hard to find info on it but I've heard of reports that the CT threshold was reduced from 42 or 45 to 35 in many Covid tests around Jan 7th or Jan 21st. I looked to find something to quote to answer your question and found this https://sentinelksmo.org/kdhe-quietly-reduced-cycle-threshold-on-covid-tests/
No idea as to the truth about this and yes it's political - but I don't know in which direction.

Sounds like FUD/misinformation. Even if it’s true about Kansas that’s just one state.

[Lurker]

Doesn't the drop in cases correspond to hospitalizations and deaths?

I  also find it incredibly hard to believe a CT threshold is responsible for more 10% of cases at the very most (3% if I had to guess)

+1. The trends are the same as the first wave. And this wave was predicted to end exactly when it did.

[Barryg]

Doesn't the drop in cases correspond to hospitalizations and deaths?

I  also find it incredibly hard to believe a CT threshold is responsible for more 10% of cases at the very most (3% if I had to guess)

It’s also hard to find info on definition of Covid hospitalizations. AFAIK if someone goes to the hospital for something other than Covid but happens to test positive they would count in the hospitalization statistic.
If each additional cycle doubles the previous one then 7-10 cycles would be be 128-1024 times larger than 35 cycles.
@biobook any thoughts on this?

[AsherO]

It’s also hard to find info on definition of Covid hospitalizations. AFAIK if someone goes to the hospital for something other than Covid but happens to test positive they would count in the hospitalization statistic.
If each additional cycle doubles the previous one then 7-10 cycles would be be 128-1024 times larger than 35 cycles.
@biobook any thoughts on this?

Do different PCR tests/assays call for different Ct cycles? Could it be that Kansas' KDHE changed something that affected their stated Ct count, and this entire discussion is moot?

[Barryg]

Do different PCR tests/assays call for different Ct cycles? Could it be that Kansas' KDHE changed something that affected their stated Ct count, and this entire discussion is moot?

I heard this idea from a few sources. These types of things aren’t easily found on the news and media. I’m not going to do a fact check myself but like many other things some of the real info is hidden deep in the archives of ddf (and most of the time in a thread of the opposite title). If my sources are correct then unfortunately any good news of drops in the danger of Covid around now are mostly due to this not talked about CT cycle change. You can also look at it as good news as until January counts were inflated due to the high (42-45) threshold for positive PCR.
I believe that other countries have had lower threshold the whole time, but in US it’s not a one state thing.

[AsherO]

I heard this idea from a few sources. These types of things aren’t easily found on the news and media. I’m not going to do a fact check myself but like many other things some of the real info is hidden deep in the archives of ddf (and most of the time in a thread of the opposite title). If my sources are correct then unfortunately any good news of drops in the danger of Covid around now are mostly due to this not talked about CT cycle change. You can also look at it as good news as until January counts were inflated due to the high (42-45) threshold for positive PCR.
I believe that other countries have had lower threshold the whole time, but in US it’s not a one state thing.

You haven't cited any real sources (on a national level) for any of this.

ETA: Two (somewhat?) relevant articles that lend credence (confirm?) to my claim that Ct values can vary from one lab to another based on process:
https://www.aacc.org/cln/cln-stat/2020/december/3/sars-cov-2-cycle-threshold-a-metric-that-matters-or-not
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/covid-19-pcr-test-reliable-despite-commotion-about-ct-values

ETA2:
See the CDC's Q&A here, specifically the questions relating to Ct:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/faqs.html#Interpreting-Results-of-Diagnostic-Tests

Can Ct values from different RT-PCR tests be compared?

No. For a given RT-PCR diagnostic test, the genetic material from a patient sample must be processed using a specific series of steps to produce a valid test result. However, the steps used to process the genetic material, the specific genetic target being measured, and the amount of the patient sample used varies among RT-PCR tests.  Because the nucleic acid target (the pathogen of interest), platform and format differ, Ct values from different RT-PCR tests cannot be compared.

[biobook]

@biobook any thoughts on this?

While I've said that I know very little about immunology, what I know about molecular biology, PCR, and clinical testing is even less than that.  So it's not only that I can't answer the question, but I'm not even sure I understand what the question is. 

Are you suggesting that the large decrease in new covid cases in January is due to a change in the way cases are counted?  That the earlier case numbers were artificially high, when the tests with high Ct's were counted as covid cases, and when the Ct cutoff was lowered to 35, the case number was more accurate, and naturally lower.   

If that's what you're asking, I still don't know the answer, but this NYT article from the summer might be relevant, where Dr. Mina was advocating from using the lower Ct cutoff.  But if I understand it, his reasoning was that the goal of testing was to find cases that needed to be treated and/or isolated to prevent spread, and those with a high Ct were not in that category.  The high Ct reflects a very low viral load, which could occur either if the person had gotten over covid, and the positive test was measuring non-infectious viral particles, or if the person had recently gotten infected, in which case the viral load would be higher in a few days, so he says they should just re-test. 

So, again, if I understand this, the cases that were positive with a high Ct WERE covid cases, in the sense that they reflected an individual who had been infected.  In some cases, that individual would retest and become a definite positive.  IN some cases the individual had likely had a definite positive before the current high Ct test. 

Not sure if anything I just wrote is meaningful, or even accurate.  Really, I know nothing about this, and I'd rely on whatever AsherO and PlatinumGuy are saying.

ETA: the NYT article  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[AsherO]

While I've said that I know very little about immunology, what I know about molecular biology, PCR, and clinical testing is even less than that.  So it's not only that I can't answer the question, but I'm not even sure I understand what the question is. 

...

Not sure if anything I just wrote is meaningful, or even accurate.  Really, I know nothing about this, and I'd rely on whatever AsherO and PlatinumGuy are saying.

Your not knowing is way more knowledgeable than nearly anyone here. At least you know enough to understand what you don’t know, and have the humility to confirm that. I’d trust your conjecture more than most people. I can’t speak for PlatinumGuy but as for myself: People should certainly defer to you over me on any topic related to biology or even science in general. And when you say you don’t know then they should be certain they don’t either know just because they read an article or two online and tried to connect some imaginary dots to suit an agenda.

[Euclid]

Your not knowing is way more knowledgeable than nearly anyone here. At least you know enough to understand what you don’t know, and have the humility to confirm that. I’d trust your conjecture more than most people. I can’t speak for PlatinumGuy but as for myself: People should certainly defer to you over me on any topic related to biology or even science in general. And when you say you don’t know then they should be certain they don’t either know just because they read an article or two online and tried to connect some imaginary dots to suit an agenda.

This deferential attitude towards people of science (like @biobook) has been sorely lacking in our community. Instead, doctors and scientists are broadly painted as political hacks. Nice to see it here...

[biobook]

Your not knowing is way more knowledgeable than nearly anyone here. At least you know enough to understand what you don’t know, and have the humility to confirm that. I’d trust your conjecture more than most people. I can’t speak for PlatinumGuy but as for myself: People should certainly defer to you over me on any topic related to biology or even science in general. And when you say you don’t know then they should be certain they don’t either know just because they read an article or two online and tried to connect some imaginary dots to suit an agenda.

It's honesty, not humility!  The biology I studied was about whole animals and humans, not molecular biology, and not medicine.  And you do seem to have some knowledge about those areas.  At least that's my conjecture, which you trust.

[AsherO]

It's honesty, not humility!

Intellectual honesty, and one of the שבעה דברים בחכם (being able to say IDK). As a lazy dabbler with a poor attention span, so I respect people with diligence who can study anything thoroughly. The biology I studied was about whole animals and humans, not molecular biology, and not medicine.

At least that's my conjecture, which you trust.

You’re using my words against me

[AsherO]

. Instead, doctors and scientists are broadly painted as political hacks.

IDK if he’s political, but Zelenko is a hack. Do I win a prize?

[PlatinumGuy]

It’s also hard to find info on definition of Covid hospitalizations.

You can check overall hospitalization rates and I'm sure you'll find they match the trend-line of covid hospitalizations. You're posing a theory which is extremely outlandish, and the main reason it's hard to believe it's true is that it would require coordination from 100s of thousands of people. The trend of cases/hospitalizations/death is similar in the vast majority of the country, there is no way it's all a farce.

Your not knowing is way more knowledgeable than nearly anyone here. At least you know enough to understand what you don’t know, and have the humility to confirm that. I’d trust your conjecture more than most people. I can’t speak for PlatinumGuy but as for myself: People should certainly defer to you over me on any topic related to biology or even science in general. And when you say you don’t know then they should be certain they don’t either know just because they read an article or two online and tried to connect some imaginary dots to suit an agenda.

Yup, sage advice. The Gemara teaches us the wisdom of relying on one who is humble over someone who is overconfident, and @biobook and I are polar opposites on that. Trust @biobook.

עירובין יג:

" א"ר אבא אמר שמואל: שלש שנים נחלקו בית-שמאי ובית-הלל, הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו. יצאה בת קול ואמרה: 'אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן, והלכה כבית-הלל'. וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן? מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו, ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש, ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן

I know Chassidus has it's understanding of the Gemara, but the Tosfos Rid says

ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש פי' היו שונין הטענות והתשובות שהי' אומר להן ב"ש ומדקדקין בהן ומתוך שמדקדקין בראיותיהן ובראיות של ב"ש עומדין על בורי' של דבר ומכוונין אליבא דהילכתא אבל ב"ש לא הי' משגיחין בדברי ב"ה לדקדק בהן ומתוך כך לא עמדו על בורי' של דבר שלא הי' נראין להן אלא דבריהן:

[AsherO]

עירובין יג:
I know Chassidus has it's understanding of the Gemara, but one Pshat is
https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin.13b.11?lang=he&p2=Tosafot_Rid_on_Eruvin_Second_Recension.13b.1&lang2=he

Tosafot Rid was a gedichte misnaged

Seriously though, it’s a good pshat and is clearly relevant, but it also removes the entire mystical potential on that Gemara.

[PlatinumGuy]

it also removes the entire mystical potential on that Gemara.

Flaw or feature? 

[AsherO]

Flaw or feature? 

Bug-as-a-feature