By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Government officials are at a loss in responding to the pandemic. The stopgap measures are studied daily, and weekly we get different orders. Confusing as it may seem there is no other way because our officials tend to simply copy what is being done elsewhere.
Now a September 11 report by LifeSiteNews cited the results of a study published by the New York Times on August 29, saying that “up to 90 percent of people testing positive (for COVID-19) carried barely any virus,” and thus are “not likely to be contagious. The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.”
The NYT article explained that the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that is commonly used, “amplify genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.”
However, the article continues, doctors “are not told about the number of cycles needed to identify the viral load. One patient could be highly contagious, whereas another is not likely to spread the virus at all – the doctor doesn’t know and is unable to act accordingly.
“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.”
Instead of using 37 to 40 cycles, which is common practice right now, the article suggested anything under 30 to 35 cycles to indicate a positive.
The high cycle being used explains the high number of positives; if the cycles used are higher, then there are fewer positives and the government and public would have been spared panic.
“Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk – akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left,” one doctor argued, according to the article.
If “up to 90 percent” of coronavirus cases are not actually contagious, the measures implemented by governors across the United States are called into question.” And so will it be in the Philippines where the authorities look at the number of new cases to determine their course of action in easing or reinforcing lockdowns.
Bacolod for instance practically panicked when just about 500 were tested positive in a population of over 600,000. If we consider the findings reported by NYT, chances are most of the 500 would be negative and “likely not contagious”.
And so because of the “widespread” risk level, many non-essential indoor business operations are closed, including indoor church services, among other things, are officially prohibited.
Supportive of this report is another finding of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention “that in 94 percent of cases of death linked to COVID-19, other health conditions and contributing causes were present, as well.”
It said further that “for 6 percent of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”
We read the rising discontent and complaints against the government restrictions. The NYT report gives support “to protests against mask mandates, mandatory vaccines, church closures, and business lockdowns.”
There are now discussions on these government actions. But the first should be to re-examine the “cycles” needed to determine the level of what can be considered positive. We can be certain that the Philippine health authorities are using the same low-level cycle as the United States. Increasing the level would dramatically reduce the number of Covid-19 positives and drastically change the government responses.
This can be done fast, unless we are in a situation where the lines from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, “Psalm of Life” would apply: Things are not what they seem.
Indeed, billions of dollars and pesos are at stake and chances the threshold is manipulated are high. So change of policy could be unlikely until the “vaccine” is found.
Hopefully, governments would change policy but as certain as the sun rises tomorrow the pharmaceuticals would be mobilizing their minions to discredit the findings in the NYT article.
