SalivaDirect potential game changer (for the good)

Donate To GopherHole
HoustonTXGopher said:
So, if I didn't serve in the military, I hate this country? If I did serve in the military, I love this country?
Click to expand...
Negation is a fallacy. I only imply what I actually said.

If you served, I would consider you a patriot, yes.
 

upnorthkid said:
chill man. seriously
Click to expand...
Surely, you consider it patriotic to risk your life to prove out the vaccine candidate, for the sake of the country. How could you not?

No problem if you don’t like my posting style (many don’t), but that’s no reason to go to absurd places just to be aligned against me.
 

MplsGopher said:
Surely, you consider it patriotic to risk your life to prove out the vaccine candidate, for the sake of the country. How could you not?

No problem if you don’t like my posting style (many don’t), but that’s no reason to go to absurd places just to be aligned against me.
Click to expand...
science and epidemiology versus allegiance to country are incredibly different concepts and should not in any way be related. Further calling someone non-Patriotic for not signing up for the vaccine as part of a trial is just a weird take. If you're saying do it for science, sure I get what you're saying (I'm not saying I agree, just that I can see the leap). This relation is just bizarre
 

upnorthkid said:
science and epidemiology versus allegiance to country are incredibly different concepts and should not in any way be related. Further calling someone non-Patriotic for not signing up for the vaccine as part of a trial is just a weird take. If you're saying do it for science, sure I get what you're saying (I'm not saying I agree, just that I can see the leap). This relation is just bizarre
Click to expand...
Patriotic - having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.

Risking your life to trial a vaccine candidate, so that it can be approved for use in your country, and the potentially save many lives in your country, exactly fits the definition. You’ll find a very low percentage of people who disagree.

I never said anything about people who don’t sign up for service or don’t trial vaccines. Disappointing lack of logic on your part. Please keep it to what I actually said.
 

MplsGopher said:
Patriotic - having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.

Risking your life to trial a vaccine candidate, so that it can be approved for use in your country, and the potentially save many lives in your country, exactly fits the definition. You’ll find a very low percentage of people who disagree.

I never said anything about people who don’t sign up for service or don’t trial vaccines. Disappointing lack of logic on your part. Please keep it to what I actually said.
Click to expand...
fair enough POV. Cheers bud.
 


upnorthkid said:
I just don't get you at all. I will do this once more in effort to connect with you as something is not clear.
You have an outstanding argument and one that is sound in science but then derange into this idea that I don't agree with the premise and chase it with patronizing commentary. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I agree with your overarching point. A rapidly available test that can increase capacity while not sacrificing sensitivity sounds fantastic. I have 2 concerns regarding the current discussion surrounding this test. 1 that the sensitivity of this test has not been externally validated and 2 (which is a substantially less important thing for the individual-which I think is more important- but is an issue for public health efforts in decision-making and recommendations at a national level) the lack of reporting mechanism in place.
On subject 1: I am all for having a rapidly available screening test that does what a screening test is supposed to do: catch as many cases of the disease as possible. This is the reason that some experts at the CDC, WHO, FDA, USPSTF, etc have noted that a screening test is helpful in a setting that it catches either 95-99% (ie HIV, EBV) of those who have the disease or (which is important in this case) is equal to the current gold standard (why FIT testing is an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy in initial screening). You have said that internally the results of this rapid screen are equivalent to the PCR. I have concern about approving a test that is not externally validated as we need to be sure that the information that will ultimately be used and acted upon by the public is similar (ie within a few percentage points) so that people are making informed decisions/reactions. If it has been externally validated and I have missed this, I am all for this test being made public and dispersed rapidly. It is better to serve individuals and deal with the population health situation later. I in no way view the opinion of Dr. Mina to be wrong and have, to the contrary, said multiple times he brings up an excellent set of points in theoretical biology and testing that I strongly agree with, which I hope has been made apparent by the above.
On subject 2: I can understand the hesitancy (not saying that I agree with how they are acting) in approving a test that will not be reported. I think you can understand the variance of viewpoint on this subject as well but fall in a different camp. I worry, and this is entirely opinion, that people will act on the test to justify lack of social distancing, etc. due to having a negative result on this, which will impact efforts being made by others to continue to do this (which is a problem pending the sensitivity of the test). However, in spite of this, if the test is proven to be equivalent to the PCR and externally validated as well as able to be mass produced/dispersed to people have access, this should not be a roadblock to this.

Regarding the comment that some view you as an ass. This is an opinion based on observation of the way people interact with you on this message board. It has nothing to do with that you disagree with people (well maybe it does for some people, I don't want to speak for Mplsgopher who clearly seems to dislike you). It has to do with your delivery of things. Speaking that you have "real" experts that agree suggests that any viewpoint to the contrary is either subjective from someone who doesn't know or that any other people are not real experts. Experts have varying opinions all the time (HCQ and Vit C in sepsis to name a couple recent ones in the medical field). Doesn't make them less of experts. It makes them human.
I personally think you add great material to this board and wonderful discourse. I know we haven't had many interactions on this board so my comment was purely that I can see why people have that viewpoint. It does come off as pompous and elitist, which is fine but can absolutely rub the wrong way particularly in the middle of making a great argument. You seem to have a great understanding of many issues and some great viewpoints, which I am open to hearing. Hopefully we will have more of this discourse on an array of subjects. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thank you for replying. I agree with most of your points, although where I might disagree is the importance of time in preventing presymptomatic spread.

If, in theory, the test misses one out of five asymptomatic people that is still better than missing five out of five asymptomatic people in terms of curtailing a rapidly spreading virus. Symptomatic people will of course self-isolate, and may go for confirmatory testing as is current.

Agree on the importance of confirmatory testing. Beyond that we’ll need to agree to disagree. I don’t think reporting is important. In fact, it’s harmful to the mission of speedy testing and cheap delivery.

Good to know you don’t dislike me 😃. I think the spectrum of personalities and opinions here is such we aren’t all going to get along and I’m ok with that. Many of us might get along in person, and others vice versa.
 

Reporting isn’t important. Laissez faire for the win.

737 Max logic.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Thank you for replying. I agree with most of your points, although where I might disagree is the importance of time in preventing presymptomatic spread.

If, in theory, the test misses one out of five asymptomatic people that is still better than missing five out of five asymptomatic people in terms of curtailing a rapidly spreading virus. Symptomatic people will of course self-isolate, and may go for confirmatory testing as is current.

Agree on the importance of confirmatory testing. Beyond that we’ll need to agree to disagree. I don’t think reporting is important. In fact, it’s harmful to the mission of speedy testing and cheap delivery.

Good to know you don’t dislike me 😃. I think the spectrum of personalities and opinions here is such we aren’t all going to get along and I’m ok with that. Many of us might get along in person, and others vice versa.
Click to expand...
Bold 1: I can completely understand your POV and logic on this. I would worry about false reassurance for people (ie I tested negative , therefore I can go to this party/gather and not worry about spreading to other people) and letting their guard down. Your point makes sense in the some is better than none department. I completely get that.

Bold 2: I worry about this in the sense that if you have issues with sensitivity (I am not saying this is the current case, but that I would like to see the actual numbers come out). I would hope and want to see it replicated that it does as well as PCR also in the symptomatic window. You don't want people to test negative and assume they don't have COVID so they don't isolate as well as they should. Again not saying this is the case, but we need to be sure this screening test does not send the wrong message to people (I would hope it doesn't, but people react differently when presented information and don't understand the numbers)

Bold 3: This is fair as well. If it's not important to you, I agree we're going to be in slightly different camps in terms of what would be hoped from this test.

Bold 4: Agree with this fully on all points and do also agree it likely would be different in person on many parts.
 




MplsGopher said:
Reporting isn’t important. Laissez faire for the win.

737 Max logic.
Click to expand...

737 Max logic was the WHO buying the CCP mid-January “no evidence of human to human transmission” bunkum hook, line, and sinker. Heckuva job, Brownie.

Instituting a preliminary layer of consumer administered at home testing with the goal of detecting many/most infectious but presymptomatic infected (instead of nearly zero presymptomatic infected with current paradigm) seems like a good idea to me. The logistics are difficult, and expensive but the concept seems worth exploring not only for this pandemic but the theoretical next one.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
737 Max logic was the WHO buying the CCP mid-January “no evidence of human to human transmission” bunkum hook, line, and sinker. Heckuva job, Brownie.

Instituting a preliminary layer of consumer administered at home testing with the goal of detecting many/most infectious but presymptomatic infected (instead of nearly zero presymptomatic infected with current paradigm) seems like a good idea to me. The logistics are difficult, and expensive but the concept seems worth exploring not only for this pandemic but the theoretical next one.
Click to expand...
Of course it seems like a good idea -- you're being paid by clients to lobby for this, so they can get a huge cash grab from the government to get a bunch these unproven at home testers into homes.
 

Seems like a good use of my time, then. Blowing off steam posting on an obscure football message board rather than directly lobbying regulators and legislators (which is happening).

Speaking of the FDA, the chief of one of the companies in the testing business alleged the other day the reason early CDC testing was so delayed was because...drumroll, pre-pandemic FDA regulations prevented private reference labs from developing and offering their own in house COV2 PCR tests. The FDA initially limited the tests to public health labs until the reagent fault was corrected. He alleges labs were ready to go very early on but were prevented from participating.

So, at times in a pandemic, bureaucracy really does have problematic effects. Rules, liability, regulator inertia.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
Seems like a good use of my time, then. Blowing off steam posting on an obscure football message board rather than directly lobbying regulators and legislators (which is happening).

Speaking of the FDA, the chief of one of the companies in the testing business alleged the other day the reason early CDC testing was so delayed was because...drumroll, pre-pandemic FDA regulations prevented private reference labs from developing and offering their own in house COV2 PCR tests. The FDA initially limited the tests to public health labs until the reagent fault was corrected. He alleges labs were ready to go very early on but were prevented from participating.

So, at times in a pandemic, bureaucracy really does have problematic effects. Rules, liability, regulator inertia.
Click to expand...
Laissez faire! 737 Max for the win! Buyer beware!
 

MplsGopher said:
Laissez faire! 737 Max for the win! Buyer beware!
Click to expand...

Adding redundant safety systems is exactly the opposite of the 737 Max situation. Using a non-redundant, prone to failure angle of attack instrument, poorly written software, lack of pilot training is literally the opposite of what is being proposed.

The goal is increased detection of presymptomatic spreaders, which is the entire problem here. The current testing paradigm isn’t doing that, at all. Will it work? Not sure based on a host of logistic and human factors. Worth developing considering the massive stakes now and in the future? I think so.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Adding redundant safety systems is exactly the opposite of the 737 Max situation. Using a non-redundant angle of attack instrument, poorly written software, lack of pilot training is literally the opposite of what is being proposed.

The goal is increased detection of presymptomatic spreaders, which is the entire problem here. The current testing paradigm isn’t doing that, at all. Will it work? Not sure based on a host of logistic and human factors. Worth developing considering the massive stakes now and in the future? I think so.
Click to expand...
The reason it's the same, is because you advocate for less regulation, less verification.

Cash grab, in other words. I vote no, without formal verification of accuracy, sensitivity, etc.
 

MplsGopher said:
The reason it's the same, is because you advocate for less regulation, less verification.

Cash grab, in other words. I vote no, without formal verification of accuracy, sensitivity, etc.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t takes months and years. Validation is not rocket science and can be performed in fairly short windows of time. Of course that is important.
 

Then let the FDA do it. Let's see what the result say. If the tests prove to be good, then sure, use them in clinical settings and report the results to the government, as is done now.
 

Let me put it in aviation language as you are fixated on the 737: the current system is like having a fault in pre-flight warning indicators: fuel, engine, trim and so on.

Individuals currently have no idea if they may be taking flight/interacting with other people with a disabled rudder/shedding massive virus.
 

MplsGopher said:
Then let the FDA do it. Let's see what the result say. If the tests prove to be good, then sure, use them in clinical settings and report the results to the government, as is done now.
Click to expand...

That’s the goal, except the reporting part. Completely unnecessary and harmful. These are not clinical diagnostic tests.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That’s the goal, except the reporting part. Completely unnecessary and harmful. These are not clinical diagnostic tests.
Click to expand...
Harmful hahaha. Of course that's a silly take. It shouldn't cost anyone anything, just upload the result like you already do to the patient's MyChart. Should be that simple. Of course I don't know what the actual system is setup as.

Of course they're diagnostic. The entire point is for someone to drive up, take their sample in their car, and give it for testing. Rather, the result would come in minutes instead of days. That's the only difference.
 

MplsGopher said:
Harmful hahaha. Of course that's a silly take. It shouldn't cost anyone anything, just upload the result like you already do to the patient's MyChart. Should be that simple. Of course I don't know what the actual system is setup as.

Of course they're diagnostic. The entire point is for someone to drive up, take their sample in their car, and give it for testing. Rather, the result would come in minutes instead of days. That's the only difference.
Click to expand...

Symptomatic cases will drive community surveillance, as is current. Nothing will change in that regard.
 



Cedar Rapids Gopher said:
Yes like Dr. Facci. He honestly should have been fired. He provided so much bad information at the beginning. Then totally changed his toon. There are several examples but the one I will use here is masks.
Click to expand...

So you are admitting you are not able to understand their initial statement on masks. They said, " Don't use masks, they don't work, we need them for Frontline healthcare workers.". Are you admitting your to dumb to understand that?

Of course Frontline healthcare people are wearing them because they don't work. ROTFLMAO......
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom