Don't love the timeline, or the false negative
Here are two problems with an otherwise amazingly well-written and researched article, given the circumstances:
First two confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Estes Park
First, it relies on one source, admittedly the source best acquainted with particulars, provided particulars were properly recorded and nothing was overlooked - For example, according to his own Facebook page, son Richard flew back from a massive "Spring Break"-type party in Texas in mid-March, about the time that everything began shutting down as cases started appearing in large numbers around the United States, but prior to masks being required on airplanes, or attendance at events like Spring Break-type outings surrounded by hundreds, if not thousands, of people, started being actively discouraged. Was this question asked: When did son Richard first visit his parents, either in Denver or Estes Park, after returning from Texas? And was this follow-up question asked: Was son Richard tested for SARS-CoV-2 at any point between mid-March and mid-May, either the RT-PCR test for genetic material, or the IgG test for antibody response to prior infection?
It is one thing to blame another institution with a large number of cases as the point source, it is another to prove this - The proposed timeline between discharge and first positive test leaves much to be desired in an 84-year-old male with significant underlying conditions, indeed, stroke is a presenting condition of COVID-19, as we absolutely sure this wasn't a case back in February, as has been reported from locations both in the United States and abroad? If that proposition doesn't excite you, the only way I can rectify an early April discharge from one nursing home with a positive test on April 20 in anyone other than a healthy 22-year-old sailor is not from picking up the virus in the retrospectively "hot" nursing home, but from touching something days later that came from that "hot" nursing home.
Second, my bigger concern, which is not just a local concern, but is more of a problem in institutions where these swabs are not rubbed against the back of 50 different nasopharynxes 50 times a day, so that the exercise becomes rote, is why the negative test on April 13? Especially why the negative test in someone who was clearly symptomatic?
Here is another piece of evidence from closer to the actual initial set of events. It is easy to blame an institution looking back mid-May, tougher to square it with information provided by a family member of their own accord in late April.
In the bigger cities, we have science. In Estes Park, we have hope and prayer. And maybe, maybe, an institution that will return a positive test if you are positively infected. At least 50% of the time.
So now you have to ask yourself, the first reported case from a member of the hospital staff, does it make more sense now where it came from? Did the hospital staff actually provide the positive test back from April 13, by incubating a sample biologically, inadvertently? If so, the lesson is, if you think you are positive for coronavirus, maybe better to hang out with first responders, because they can be your positive test by proxy.
First two confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Estes Park
First, it relies on one source, admittedly the source best acquainted with particulars, provided particulars were properly recorded and nothing was overlooked - For example, according to his own Facebook page, son Richard flew back from a massive "Spring Break"-type party in Texas in mid-March, about the time that everything began shutting down as cases started appearing in large numbers around the United States, but prior to masks being required on airplanes, or attendance at events like Spring Break-type outings surrounded by hundreds, if not thousands, of people, started being actively discouraged. Was this question asked: When did son Richard first visit his parents, either in Denver or Estes Park, after returning from Texas? And was this follow-up question asked: Was son Richard tested for SARS-CoV-2 at any point between mid-March and mid-May, either the RT-PCR test for genetic material, or the IgG test for antibody response to prior infection?
It is one thing to blame another institution with a large number of cases as the point source, it is another to prove this - The proposed timeline between discharge and first positive test leaves much to be desired in an 84-year-old male with significant underlying conditions, indeed, stroke is a presenting condition of COVID-19, as we absolutely sure this wasn't a case back in February, as has been reported from locations both in the United States and abroad? If that proposition doesn't excite you, the only way I can rectify an early April discharge from one nursing home with a positive test on April 20 in anyone other than a healthy 22-year-old sailor is not from picking up the virus in the retrospectively "hot" nursing home, but from touching something days later that came from that "hot" nursing home.
Second, my bigger concern, which is not just a local concern, but is more of a problem in institutions where these swabs are not rubbed against the back of 50 different nasopharynxes 50 times a day, so that the exercise becomes rote, is why the negative test on April 13? Especially why the negative test in someone who was clearly symptomatic?
Here is another piece of evidence from closer to the actual initial set of events. It is easy to blame an institution looking back mid-May, tougher to square it with information provided by a family member of their own accord in late April.
So now you have to ask yourself, the first reported case from a member of the hospital staff, does it make more sense now where it came from? Did the hospital staff actually provide the positive test back from April 13, by incubating a sample biologically, inadvertently? If so, the lesson is, if you think you are positive for coronavirus, maybe better to hang out with first responders, because they can be your positive test by proxy.
Comments
Post a Comment