Have you sign-up for weekly asymptomatic testing at APS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this person who keeps on insisting that aps can distinguish between active virus and remnant virus.
From the resource path website (aps testing contractor
If you have previously had COVID-19 infection, please note that our RT-PCR tests are very sensitive and can intermittently detect virus for weeks/months even after the active infection period (10-14 days) has passed. Since a negative


https://www.resourcepath.net/covid-19-rt-pcr-tests/#1611210156999-5756389f-c111

Yes the test can detect virus after an infection. No one is disputing that. And they also check for a genetic marker on the virus sample that is only there during an active infection. So, if you had a previous infection, it does not trigger a positive result on this test.

This ‘genetic marker’ for an active infection is the false part. If that was true the disclaimer about getting a positive result post infection would not be needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For this person who keeps on insisting that aps can distinguish between active virus and remnant virus.
From the resource path website (aps testing contractor
If you have previously had COVID-19 infection, please note that our RT-PCR tests are very sensitive and can intermittently detect virus for weeks/months even after the active infection period (10-14 days) has passed. Since a negative


https://www.resourcepath.net/covid-19-rt-pcr-tests/#1611210156999-5756389f-c111

Yes the test can detect virus after an infection. No one is disputing that. And they also check for a genetic marker on the virus sample that is only there during an active infection. So, if you had a previous infection, it does not trigger a positive result on this test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this person who keeps on insisting that aps can distinguish between active virus and remnant virus.
From the resource path website (aps testing contractor
If you have previously had COVID-19 infection, please note that our RT-PCR tests are very sensitive and can intermittently detect virus for weeks/months even after the active infection period (10-14 days) has passed. Since a negative


https://www.resourcepath.net/covid-19-rt-pcr-tests/#1611210156999-5756389f-c111

Yes the test can detect virus after an infection. No one is disputing that. And they also check for a genetic marker on the virus sample that is only there during an active infection. So, if you had a previous infection, it does not trigger a positive result on this test.

This ‘genetic marker’ for an active infection is the false part. If that was true the disclaimer about getting a positive result post infection would not be needed

There are a lot of things on their website that need to be updated. The program is good. The communications have been really bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this person who keeps on insisting that aps can distinguish between active virus and remnant virus.
From the resource path website (aps testing contractor
If you have previously had COVID-19 infection, please note that our RT-PCR tests are very sensitive and can intermittently detect virus for weeks/months even after the active infection period (10-14 days) has passed. Since a negative


https://www.resourcepath.net/covid-19-rt-pcr-tests/#1611210156999-5756389f-c111

Yes the test can detect virus after an infection. No one is disputing that. And they also check for a genetic marker on the virus sample that is only there during an active infection. So, if you had a previous infection, it does not trigger a positive result on this test.

This ‘genetic marker’ for an active infection is the false part. If that was true the disclaimer about getting a positive result post infection would not be needed

There are a lot of things on their website that need to be updated. The program is good. The communications have been really bad.

doesn't APS have communications people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this person who keeps on insisting that aps can distinguish between active virus and remnant virus.
From the resource path website (aps testing contractor
If you have previously had COVID-19 infection, please note that our RT-PCR tests are very sensitive and can intermittently detect virus for weeks/months even after the active infection period (10-14 days) has passed. Since a negative


https://www.resourcepath.net/covid-19-rt-pcr-tests/#1611210156999-5756389f-c111

Yes the test can detect virus after an infection. No one is disputing that. And they also check for a genetic marker on the virus sample that is only there during an active infection. So, if you had a previous infection, it does not trigger a positive result on this test.

This is the resource path website- warning you that virus can be intermittently detect virus for months after the active infection period. There is no PCR 'genetic marker' that says if someone is infectious. If this existed it would be widely used to get people out of quarantine and back to work. Instead, we quarantine, and CDC specifically recommends against post infection testing. This simply doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

You're not going to sign up for testing, that's pretty clear. Very sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're not going to sign up for testing, that's pretty clear. Very sad.

Tell that to the 80%+ of people who didn't sign up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not going to sign up for testing, that's pretty clear. Very sad.

Tell that to the 80%+ of people who didn't sign up.

LOL. We don’t have 80% anti-testers.

We have some who didn’t know about it, some who didn’t understand it, and some who tried but the opt-in form was too confusing/laborious.

Only a small % were selfish a-holes who decided NOT to do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not going to sign up for testing, that's pretty clear. Very sad.

Tell that to the 80%+ of people who didn't sign up.

LOL. We don’t have 80% anti-testers.

We have some who didn’t know about it, some who didn’t understand it, and some who tried but the opt-in form was too confusing/laborious.

Only a small % were selfish a-holes who decided NOT to do the right thing.

My impression from talking to people I know is that a lot of the people who didn't sign up support the idea in theory, but are concerned about how it will work in practice. Someone raised questions on AEM last night (in the thread about the algorithm from the woman who called the testing company) about what happens if there are conflicting results between the algorithm and the confirmation test or if there are multiple positives in the pools that implicate several students not all of whom have covid. People are legitimately concerned about how opaque the process is and whether their child could be barred from going to school when they are negative for covid because of flaws in the testing protocols.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of you objecting to asymptomatic testing, don't you remember when we had children do asymptomatic testing for the swine flu in 2009-2010, causing tons of healthy kids who were close contact to miss school? Oh yeah, neither do I.

The Swine flu is estimated to have killed 3x to 4x more kids on an annual basis than COVID (CDC had to estimate because they weren't testing people like crazy):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-usa/swine-flu-has-killed-up-to-17000-in-u-s-report-idUSN1223579720100212

Flu is also often transmitted asymptomatically:
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/asymptomatic-influenza-infection-rates-deserve-more-attention

Stop asking such logical questions! Pfizer just announced that they could not directly test the efficacy of the vaccine in the trial they just conducted because of how rarely children 5-11 become seriously ill with COVID.

That is why I did not sign my children up for asymptomatic screening. This nonsense has to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you objecting to asymptomatic testing, don't you remember when we had children do asymptomatic testing for the swine flu in 2009-2010, causing tons of healthy kids who were close contact to miss school? Oh yeah, neither do I.

The Swine flu is estimated to have killed 3x to 4x more kids on an annual basis than COVID (CDC had to estimate because they weren't testing people like crazy):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-usa/swine-flu-has-killed-up-to-17000-in-u-s-report-idUSN1223579720100212

Flu is also often transmitted asymptomatically:
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/asymptomatic-influenza-infection-rates-deserve-more-attention

Stop asking such logical questions! Pfizer just announced that they could not directly test the efficacy of the vaccine in the trial they just conducted because of how rarely children 5-11 become seriously ill with COVID.

That is why I did not sign my children up for asymptomatic screening. This nonsense has to stop.

“Nonsense”? JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not going to sign up for testing, that's pretty clear. Very sad.

Tell that to the 80%+ of people who didn't sign up.

LOL. We don’t have 80% anti-testers.

We have some who didn’t know about it, some who didn’t understand it, and some who tried but the opt-in form was too confusing/laborious.

Only a small % were selfish a-holes who decided NOT to do the right thing.

My impression from talking to people I know is that a lot of the people who didn't sign up support the idea in theory, but are concerned about how it will work in practice. Someone raised questions on AEM last night (in the thread about the algorithm from the woman who called the testing company) about what happens if there are conflicting results between the algorithm and the confirmation test or if there are multiple positives in the pools that implicate several students not all of whom have covid. People are legitimately concerned about how opaque the process is and whether their child could be barred from going to school when they are negative for covid because of flaws in the testing protocols.

Yup. Poor communication has made it difficult to understand the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you objecting to asymptomatic testing, don't you remember when we had children do asymptomatic testing for the swine flu in 2009-2010, causing tons of healthy kids who were close contact to miss school? Oh yeah, neither do I.

The Swine flu is estimated to have killed 3x to 4x more kids on an annual basis than COVID (CDC had to estimate because they weren't testing people like crazy):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-usa/swine-flu-has-killed-up-to-17000-in-u-s-report-idUSN1223579720100212

Flu is also often transmitted asymptomatically:
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/asymptomatic-influenza-infection-rates-deserve-more-attention

Stop asking such logical questions! Pfizer just announced that they could not directly test the efficacy of the vaccine in the trial they just conducted because of how rarely children 5-11 become seriously ill with COVID.

That is why I did not sign my children up for asymptomatic screening. This nonsense has to stop.

“Nonsense”? JFC.

Yes, when a recent flu SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children did not result in any asymptomatic testing, forced masking and other restrictive rules, the only logical explanation is pure hysteria.

H1N1 is still here too, just like COVID will be in 2031. These policies imply COVID will be eradicated, which it will not be. Significant disruptions of children's education for little benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you objecting to asymptomatic testing, don't you remember when we had children do asymptomatic testing for the swine flu in 2009-2010, causing tons of healthy kids who were close contact to miss school? Oh yeah, neither do I.

The Swine flu is estimated to have killed 3x to 4x more kids on an annual basis than COVID (CDC had to estimate because they weren't testing people like crazy):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-usa/swine-flu-has-killed-up-to-17000-in-u-s-report-idUSN1223579720100212

Flu is also often transmitted asymptomatically:
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/asymptomatic-influenza-infection-rates-deserve-more-attention

Stop asking such logical questions! Pfizer just announced that they could not directly test the efficacy of the vaccine in the trial they just conducted because of how rarely children 5-11 become seriously ill with COVID.

That is why I did not sign my children up for asymptomatic screening. This nonsense has to stop.

“Nonsense”? JFC.

Yes, when a recent flu SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children did not result in any asymptomatic testing, forced masking and other restrictive rules, the only logical explanation is pure hysteria.

H1N1 is still here too, just like COVID will be in 2031. These policies imply COVID will be eradicated, which it will not be. Significant disruptions of children's education for little benefit.

You're forgetting these policies do provide the benefit to closed school activists of avoiding cognitive dissonance from the significant harm these closed school policies they advocated for inflicted on children (they're still advocating for closed schools as they want healthy children to be out of school).

[Anonymous]

I rarely look at AEM, but I did- and now I know that the person spreading the inaccurate information here about having 'talked to the lab' and learned that this lab has come up with some process to diagnose 'active infection' that the CDC doesn't even think exists, is none other than our favorite ventilation lady, or someone who is talking to her.

Also- interesting that the same lab which 'doesn't have time' to send negative test results to kids who need them to get back into school- has lots of time to spend hours talking to parents......