Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 testing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:COVID-19 testing/Archive 3) (bot
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk page header|search=yes|archive_age=7|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{talk page header|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|covid}}
{{Current COVID-19 consensuses|collapsed=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject COVID-19|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject COVID-19|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=High|pulmonology=yes|pulmonology-imp=low|image-needed=no}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High|pulmonology=yes|pulmonology-imp=low|image-needed=no}}
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|class=B|importance=Low|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|importance=Low|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Viruses|class=B|importance=Low|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Viruses|importance=Low|needs-image=no}}
}}
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Copied|from=COVID-19 testing|from_oldid=|to=Development of COVID-19 tests|to_diff=|to_oldid=}}
{{Copied|from=COVID-19 testing|from_oldid=|to=Development of COVID-19 tests|to_diff=|to_oldid=}}
{{Current COVID-19 consensuses|collapsed=yes}}

{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Stanford_Law_School/Advanced_Legal_Research_(Spring_2020) | assignments = [[User:Elisawulfsberg|Elisawulfsberg]] | start_date = 2020-04-03 | end_date = 2020-06-10 }}
}}
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Section sizes}}
Line 30: Line 32:
}}
}}


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* [[commons:File:Drive-thru-testing-delhi.jpg|Drive-thru-testing-delhi.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-01-19T15:07:17.856116 | Drive-thru-testing-delhi.jpg -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


== Testing after vaccination ==
{{edit semi-protected|COVID-19 testing|answered=yes}}
It's my understanding that the Covid-19 vaccine works by producing antibodies and that (some?) covid tests test for the presence of antibodies. If this is the case, it would seem logical that someone who has been vaccinated should not take the covid-detection tests that test for antibodies because such tests will always yield positive results. If my rationale is correct, then this point should be included in the article, shouldn't it? [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 00:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Immediately after "Antibody tests
The body responds to a viral infection by producing antibodies that [help: delete "help"] neutralize the virus."[X] and


== Distortion of comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci ==
""Neutralization assay
Neutralization assays assess whether sample antibodies prevent viral infection in test cells." [X]


Currently the article includes the following sentence:
it would be helpful for readers who do not know much about virus neutralization to cite:


{{Blockquote
Klasse PJ. Neutralization of Virus Infectivity by Antibodies: Old Problems in New Perspectives. Adv Biol. 2014;2014:157895. doi: 10.1155/2014/157895. Epub 2014 Sep 9. PMID: 27099867; PMCID: PMC4835181.
| text= On July 16, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US CDC indicated that positive results obtained from RT-PCR tests run at more than 35 cycles were almost always "just dead nucleotides".
}}


This is a dangerous misinterpretation of what Fauci actually said. As one can verify by going back to the source, his actual words were (taken from YouTube automated transcript, condensed and punctuated for clarity):
Likewise after the following passage, it would clarify the issue by adding that comprehensive reference about virus neutralization in general in two places:


{{Blockquote
"A NAb is an antibody that defends a cell from an infectious particle by neutralizing its biological effects. Neutralization renders the particle no longer infectious or pathogenic.[76][X] A binding antibody binds to the pathogen but the pathogen remains infective; the purpose can be to flag the pathogen for destruction by the immune system.[77]"[X]
| text = what is now sort of, uh, evolving into a bit of a standard, that if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule … somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it's like 37 cycle threshold but … you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle, so I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it's just, it's just dead nucleotides, period.

}}
But that passage requires several fundamental corrections thus:

A NAb is an antibody that neutralizes the infectivity of a virus particle by blocking its attachment to or entry into a susceptible cell; enveloped viruses, like e.g. SARS-CoV-2, are neutralized by the blocking of steps in the replicative cycle up to and including membrane fusion [76][X]. A non-neutralizing antibody either does not bind to the crucial structures on the virus surface or binds but leaves the virus particle infectious; the antibody may still contribute to the destruction of virus particles or infected cells by the immune system.[77][X] [[User:Virus Neutralization|Virus Neutralization]] ([[User talk:Virus Neutralization|talk]]) 15:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:RFZYNSPY|<b><font color="orange">RFZYN</font><font color="purple">SPY</font></b>]] <b><sup>[[User talk:RFZYNSPY|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</sup></b> 00:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Thanks for the amazingly thorough and expert edits. Keep 'em coming, [[User:Virus_Neutralization | Virus Neutralization]]! [[User:RFZYNSPY|<b><font color="orange">RFZYN</font><font color="purple">SPY</font></b>]] <b><sup>[[User talk:RFZYNSPY|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</sup></b> 00:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

== english project ==


Fauci is clearly talking about ''results'' you might get when you perform the PCR test. A cycle threshold is a PCR result. If you get a cycle threshold of 38 (it doesn’t finish until the 38th cycle) that’s a very weak positive result.
3rd wave of Corona virus advantage and disadvantage [[Special:Contributions/106.200.166.173|106.200.166.173]] ([[User talk:106.200.166.173|talk]]) 16:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


The sentence currently in the article, however, incorrectly implies that some ''method'' of performing the PCR test sets it up for failure. There’s actually no such thing as “running PCR at N cycles”, but the current phrasing falsely suggests there is, and furthermore that it’s a method prone to generating false positives (as opposed to knowing ''when'' you get results which are only weakly positive, those are the ones likeliest to be false positives.)
== "Methods" / "Available tests" ==


This is dangerous misinformation, as it feeds into conspiracy narratives about “elites” instituting testing that they know is faulty for nefarious purposes. Again, Fauci says nothing in the cited source which reflects on the testing ''method''; he is clearly saying that certain ''results'' that may be obtained indicate probable false positives - and note what he says about it “evolving” (present tense) into a standard. There’s nothing to support the idea that it could have been known beforehand “don’t bother continuing if you don’t have a result in 35 cycles because then it will be dead nucleotides.”
Section 1 on "Methods" and section 4 on "Available tests" partially overlap. I suggest that the general theoretical parts of section 4 should be merged into section 1. And details of specific tests could be moved from section 1 to section 4, or they could be discarded if they no longer seem to be notable. [[User:JonH|JonH]] ([[User talk:JonH|talk]]) 17:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- [[Special:Contributions/209.6.11.210|209.6.11.210]] ([[User talk:209.6.11.210|talk]]) 04:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


:When is this going to be corrected? Fauci was talking about cycle threshold, not cycles so the text as it is now is wrong.
== Typo on page ==
:Also missing the fact Fauci was talking about retesting someone who already tested positive earier and he doesn't say his remark was about Ct>35 in general. [[User:Noef101|Noef101]] ([[User talk:Noef101|talk]]) 22:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
{{Edit protected|answered=yes}}


== Swabbing throat as well as nose for rapid tests? ==
Widespread is mistyped somewhere. Please fix. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A459:8FB6:1:D85A:35D4:6A73:41B4|2A02:A459:8FB6:1:D85A:35D4:6A73:41B4]] ([[User talk:2A02:A459:8FB6:1:D85A:35D4:6A73:41B4|talk]]) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


There was a meme about using the swab on your throat before running it through both sides of your nose when collecting a sample for testing. This supposedly improved the false negative rate for Omicron infections.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220111/nose-throat-covid-test |date=2022-01-11 |title=Swab Nose, Throat, or Both for COVID-19 Rapid Tests? |first=Damian |last=McNamara |work=WebMD |access-date=2022-06-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://bc.ctvnews.ca/should-you-swab-your-throat-while-taking-a-covid-19-rapid-test-answers-vary-by-jurisdiction-1.5849210 |title=Should you swab your throat while taking a COVID-19 rapid test? Answers vary by jurisdiction |first=Andrew |last=Weichel |date=2022-03-20 |work=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |access-date=2022-06-12}}</ref> Here's an official recommended method from Ontario Health, which is still the current recommendation.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ontariohealth.ca/sites/ontariohealth/files/2022-05/RAT-Oral-nasal-collection-instructions-English.pdf |title=Oral/Nasal Collection Instructions for RAT -- COVID-19 |date=2022-02-09 |publisher=Ontario Health |access-date=2022-06-12}}</ref> However, there was little or weak evidence for this, and as far as I know, nobody ever actually confirmed whether this improves test accuracy or not. Does somebody know more, and can they add it to the article? -- [[User:Gnuish|Gnuish]] ([[User talk:Gnuish|talk]]) 18:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:The typo is "widepsread". [[Special:Contributions/192.180.91.15|192.180.91.15]] ([[User talk:192.180.91.15|talk]]) 23:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
: {{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021 ==


==Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication==
{{edit semi-protected|COVID-19 testing|answered=no}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/York_College_of_Pennsylvania/Technical_and_Scientific_Communication_(Fall_2022) | assignments = [[User:Cailinharris|Cailinharris]] | start_date = 2022-08-22 | end_date = 2022-12-09 }}
In this sentence


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Cailinharris|Cailinharris]] ([[User talk:Cailinharris|talk]]) 14:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)</span>
''Because SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs days after exposure (and before onset of symptoms) there is an urgent need for frequent surveillance and rapid availability of results.''


I added some more information about imaging testing for COVID-19 for my wikiedu assignment. Something I think that can be added would be a "other" option for the covid testing in the contents box. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cailinharris|Cailinharris]] ([[User talk:Cailinharris#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cailinharris|contribs]]) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
please add a comma after the parenthetical phrase. It's not ungrammatical, but it's a long enough sentence that a comma helps to break it up. [[Special:Contributions/192.180.91.15|192.180.91.15]] ([[User talk:192.180.91.15|talk]]) 23:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:39, 17 July 2024


A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testing after vaccination

[edit]

It's my understanding that the Covid-19 vaccine works by producing antibodies and that (some?) covid tests test for the presence of antibodies. If this is the case, it would seem logical that someone who has been vaccinated should not take the covid-detection tests that test for antibodies because such tests will always yield positive results. If my rationale is correct, then this point should be included in the article, shouldn't it? Mercy11 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion of comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci

[edit]

Currently the article includes the following sentence:

On July 16, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US CDC indicated that positive results obtained from RT-PCR tests run at more than 35 cycles were almost always "just dead nucleotides".

This is a dangerous misinterpretation of what Fauci actually said. As one can verify by going back to the source, his actual words were (taken from YouTube automated transcript, condensed and punctuated for clarity):

what is now sort of, uh, evolving into a bit of a standard, that if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule … somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it's like 37 cycle threshold but … you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle, so I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it's just, it's just dead nucleotides, period.

Fauci is clearly talking about results you might get when you perform the PCR test. A cycle threshold is a PCR result. If you get a cycle threshold of 38 (it doesn’t finish until the 38th cycle) that’s a very weak positive result.

The sentence currently in the article, however, incorrectly implies that some method of performing the PCR test sets it up for failure. There’s actually no such thing as “running PCR at N cycles”, but the current phrasing falsely suggests there is, and furthermore that it’s a method prone to generating false positives (as opposed to knowing when you get results which are only weakly positive, those are the ones likeliest to be false positives.)

This is dangerous misinformation, as it feeds into conspiracy narratives about “elites” instituting testing that they know is faulty for nefarious purposes. Again, Fauci says nothing in the cited source which reflects on the testing method; he is clearly saying that certain results that may be obtained indicate probable false positives - and note what he says about it “evolving” (present tense) into a standard. There’s nothing to support the idea that it could have been known beforehand “don’t bother continuing if you don’t have a result in 35 cycles because then it will be dead nucleotides.” - 209.6.11.210 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When is this going to be corrected? Fauci was talking about cycle threshold, not cycles so the text as it is now is wrong.
Also missing the fact Fauci was talking about retesting someone who already tested positive earier and he doesn't say his remark was about Ct>35 in general. Noef101 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swabbing throat as well as nose for rapid tests?

[edit]

There was a meme about using the swab on your throat before running it through both sides of your nose when collecting a sample for testing. This supposedly improved the false negative rate for Omicron infections.[1][2] Here's an official recommended method from Ontario Health, which is still the current recommendation.[3] However, there was little or weak evidence for this, and as far as I know, nobody ever actually confirmed whether this improves test accuracy or not. Does somebody know more, and can they add it to the article? -- Gnuish (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McNamara, Damian (2022-01-11). "Swab Nose, Throat, or Both for COVID-19 Rapid Tests?". WebMD. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  2. ^ Weichel, Andrew (2022-03-20). "Should you swab your throat while taking a COVID-19 rapid test? Answers vary by jurisdiction". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  3. ^ "Oral/Nasal Collection Instructions for RAT -- COVID-19" (PDF). Ontario Health. 2022-02-09. Retrieved 2022-06-12.

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cailinharris (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cailinharris (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more information about imaging testing for COVID-19 for my wikiedu assignment. Something I think that can be added would be a "other" option for the covid testing in the contents box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cailinharris (talkcontribs) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]