{"id":4006,"date":"2020-05-19T15:12:35","date_gmt":"2020-05-19T19:12:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.musingsbymichael.com\/blog\/?p=4006"},"modified":"2020-05-19T15:12:35","modified_gmt":"2020-05-19T19:12:35","slug":"covid-19-statistics-are-false","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.musingsbymichael.com\/blog\/2020\/05\/19\/covid-19-statistics-are-false\/","title":{"rendered":"Covid-19 statistics are false!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Covid-19<\/a><\/p>\n

Covid-19 statistics are false! Due to two factors, accuracy of testing and who really died from Covid-19.<\/span><\/p>\n

From ARUP Laboratories they concluded the following<\/a>, \u201cBecause they detect molecules that are specific to SARS-CoV-2, the specificity of nucleic acid tests for COVID-19 is very high, meaning that a positive result can generally be trusted. Specificity of available antibody tests may vary by assay; it is important to check the validation data provided by the manufacturer and\/or performing laboratory. Sensitivity of both nucleic acid tests and antibody tests is affected by number of variables. The likelihood of a false-negative result depends on both the timing of sample collection and the type of specimen collected (in the case of the molecular test).<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

From Undark<\/a>, \u201cTests turning up negative even when all signs point to Covid-19 has been a common experience in American hospitals over the past month, public health experts have told ProPublica. It\u2019s unclear what proportion of these negative results are inaccurate \u2014 known as \u201cfalse negatives\u201d \u2014 and whether that\u2019s due to some external factor, like bad sample collection, or because of an issue inherent in the tests\u2019 design.<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

And from Roche<\/a>, \u201cThere are several factors independent of accuracy that can lead to false positives or false negatives with any test, including our PCR-based test. Some of these include:<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The sample is collected too early. Newly infected individuals may have low concentrations of the virus present at the time of sampling. To detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR-based test, which amplifies and analyzes the genetic code of viruses, the virus must be present in high enough concentrations. If a test is performed too early in the infection period (typically, day 1-4), it may come back negative even though the patient does have the virus.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The sample is collected too late. If a sample is taken after the disease has progressed too far, the amount of virus that remains in the body might not be enough to be detected by the test, leading to a false negative result. (There are other types of tests, such as antibody tests, that can detect the body\u2019s immune system response to the virus later, but they are not as effective at detecting the virus early in the disease progression.)<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The sample is contaminated. Handling samples taken from patients who have high concentrations of virus brings a greater risk of contaminating other surfaces in the healthcare environment (such as gloves, sample collection devices, etc.). This could lead to contamination of other patient samples so they show up as false positives.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The sample is stored too long. Swab samples taken from patients have limited stability over time. If extended storage, transport, or handling causes a long delay before the sample is tested, it can be harder to detect the virus, leading to a false negative result.<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

So it seem to me that when the test is done and at what point in the progression the virus is in, are the two important factors that can lead to false positives or negatives. This leads me to think that the reporting statistics are skewed to report more positive test results and thus is misleading the public into thinking more people have the virus than what there really is.<\/span><\/p>\n

From USA Today<\/a> Senator Scott Jensen who is a physician in Minnesota stated the following, \u201cHow can anyone not believe that increasing the number of COVID-19 deaths may create an avenue for states to receive a larger portion of federal dollars. Already some states are complaining that they are not getting enough of the CARES Act\u00a0dollars because they are having significantly more proportional COVID-19 deaths.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

On April 19, he doubled down on his assertion via video on his Facebook page.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Jensen said, “Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why? Because if it’s a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for \u2013\u00a0if they’re Medicare \u2013 typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it’s COVID-19 pneumonia, then it’s $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000.<\/i>“<\/span><\/p>\n

It seems that reporting has been skewed by the need for money and thus I no longer trust the number of deaths reported as being due to Covid-19 as being accurate.<\/span><\/p>\n

We have been lied to and mislead by our public officials! This is a very stupid thing to do. I do not think that we can use the official death count nor how many are testing as positive for Covid-19 as being a trusted marker for reopening the country.<\/span><\/p>\n

I must conclude that things are not as bad as our elected officials have painted them as and it is far past the time to reopen our economy.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is my opinion- Jumpin Jersey Mike<\/span><\/p>\n