Sure, but it will require several things. First, you have to throw out that Canada free press article as Antivax propaganda. Mr. Rappaport begins by misinterpreting the document in question, which is understandable as he has zero understanding of biochemistry or the manner in which PCR assays work. Good?
So we would need to go back to the FDA document in question, not just this ignorant reporter’s excerpt. Agreed?
Then you have to learn a good bit of biochemistry, starting with at least an undergrad full year course in the discipline. You’ll need to have a working knowledge of receptor affinity, ligand avidity, of things like hydrogen bonding and association/dissociation constants, not to mention not just knowledge of chirality and 3-dimensional molecular structure but actually be able to visualize and work with these concepts. You’ll also have to have a pretty good background in mathematics, applied statistics at least. After you’ve grasped that that we can have an intelligent discussion about it.
But for now I’ll just say that PCR assays are capable of identifying and separating quite small parts of molecules, such as short segments of a protein called peptides. You don’t need an entire virus to develop a PCR assay for that virus if you have one of the peptides from a virus’s protein coat, or part of something like a spike protein.
As I stated in an earlier post, in the early days of the pandemic the need for tests for the infection was extremely urgent. A lot of people worked very hard, not just at the CDC, but around the world, to develop them quickly enough and in sufficient quantity to allow us to get a grasp of what we were dealing with.
On February of 2020 most of the people on this forum had not the vaguest notion of how frightening the novel coronavirus was to the medical world. We didn’t know if this was going to be another influenza virus like we saw in 1918, or if it was going to be like the Black Death in the 13th and 14th centuries, that would kill 1/3 of the human beings on the planet. The need to identify cases and trace connections was a very real imperative. It was understood by scientists and doctors that there would be better tests coming down the road, but the world couldn’t wait for the best tests. The world needed “good enough” tests, and that’s what we got.
Were there inaccuracies in those early tests? Of course! We knew there would be, but we didn’t have the luxury of 18 months of hindsight that you and I have today.
Too many people have bought into the television-drama fictional concept that science is something that can solve a world-shaking problem in 43 minutes plus commercial breaks. Apparently there are a lot of those people on this forum, and perhaps you’re one of them, WTM45. These fools think that all that needs to be done is put a pretty girl in a white coat in front of some test tubes and a computer and her bright young mind will solve the problem.
But science doesn’t work that way. Science is hard, and the road to success is only identified after multiple wrong turns. There is no road map until you generate it by hard work and exhaustive investigation.
You have the opportunity to see this happening right now. You have the opportunity to read of the failures and successes, and to watch the greatest worldwide effort of science that humanity has ever seen unfold in real time. Or you can let the self-serving politicians in Wash8ngton and no-nothing reporters in the popular press distract you from this magnificent story.
Why does someone who isn't sick need to be tested? And why not treat those who are sick instead of just sending them home? I feel like the doctors bare a lot of the responsibility for killing those who tested positive and wanted treatment and were sent home.
