Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Oh, about that flawed FDA Covid-19 test . . . it may have been contaminated with the virus

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s the report:

As the new coronavirus took root across America, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent states tainted test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus, federal officials have confirmed.

The contamination made the tests uninterpretable, and—because testing is crucial for containment efforts—it lost the country invaluable time to get ahead of the advancing pandemic.

The CDC had been vague about what went wrong with the tests, initially only saying that “a problem in the manufacturing of one of the reagents” had led to the failure. Subsequent reporting suggested that the problem was with a negative control—that is, a part of the test meant to be free of any trace of the coronavirus as a critical reference for confirming that the test was working properly overall.

Now, according to investigation results reported by The New York Times, federal officials confirm that sloppy laboratory practices at two of three CDC labs involved in the tests’ creation led to contamination of the tests and their uninterpretable results.

That’s a real oopsie if so.

NYT adds:

Sloppy laboratory practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention caused contamination that rendered the nation’s first coronavirus tests ineffective, federal officials confirmed on Saturday.

Two of the three C.D.C. laboratories in Atlanta that created the coronavirus test kits violated their own manufacturing standards, resulting in the agency sending tests that did not work to nearly all of the 100 state and local public health labs, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Poor lab practices seem to be a concern surrounding this epidemic.

And, a failed test was indeed a big part of stumbling, multiplied by red tape hurdles to get other tests going. Time to connect dots. END

Comments
Not really. Any buffoon can do it. ????
Certainly, any fool of a Took can do it badly.Bob O'H
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Sev, you got me on that literary allusion. KF PS: My Dad was one of the last generation before computers. He could add three columns of digits to any length in his head and always cross checked calculators in his head. When he tried to teach me the algorithm, I boggled. But then, I was struggling to cram in stuff for O Level exams.kairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
I've always thought Saruman was probably a statistician.Seversky
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Based on my observations, it takes considerable hardiness to succeed in statistics. There's a reason some of us with a more delicate constitution call it "sadistics".daveS
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Asauber, doing it well is real high class voodoo. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
"I feel I can speak with some authority on this matter, and say that it’s a Dark Art." Bob O'H, Not really. Any buffoon can do it. :) Andrewasauber
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
ASauber, is Statistics a science? A branch of Mathematics? A policy tool, too often poorly or even deceptively used? Or, what? KF
I feel I can speak with some authority on this matter, and say that it's a Dark Art.Bob O'H
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
___ John_a_designer:
atheistic materialism has nothing to offer as a world view.
Yes, it has. Despair and non-sense.Truthfreedom
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
"Because atheistic materialism has nothing to offer as a world view." JAD, But they keep coming back to repeatedly, year after year, to offer the nothing they never had. ;) Andrewasauber
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
TF @ 41, Back in June 2018 I had this exchange with Seversky who I believe has been commenting on this site for at least 7 or 8 years. (Why? Who knows.) In a response to an OP entitled, “As Astrology Goes Mainstream, Will Big Science Start To Accommodate It?” I wrote @ #1:
Atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no answers to mankind’s deepest spiritual and moral needs. It is a morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt world view, yet many people irrationally and absurdly cling to it. Why? They cannot give a rational explanation. They do not know but don’t even know they don’t know…
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/as-astrology-goes-mainstream-will-big-science-start-to-accommodate-it/#comment-660948 To which Seversky @ #2 replied, point by point: Me: Atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no answers to mankind’s deepest spiritual and moral needs. Seversky: “I agree. It can’t. But if you assume there is no God then we are forced to confront the reality that we are on our own, we are all we have so where do we go from here?” Me: It is a morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt world view, yet many people irrationally and absurdly cling to it. Seversky “If atheism, by definition, cannot provide moral and spiritual guidance then calling it bankrupt for not doing what it cannot do is unfair. That does not prevent us from constructing “worldviews” and moral codes that are atheist.” Me: Why? They cannot give a rational explanation. They do not know but don’t even know they don’t know… Seversky: “As I said, atheists can construct rational worldviews and moral codes. It’s just that they cannot appeal to the unquestionable authority of some deity to support them.” Notice, that Seversky basically concedes to each of my points. Of course that brings up a number of other questions like: who is obligated to follow a moral code constructed by atheists? Does it apply to just them or everyone else (society)? Do any human constructed moral codes carry any kind of real morally binding obligations? It’s because of irrational nonsense like this that I have said here many time before, “If I were an atheistic materialist, I would leave other people alone.” Why? Because atheistic materialism has nothing to offer as a world view.john_a_designer
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
KF, Yes, I too find those other formats helpful sometimes. But it's still a struggle for me.daveS
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
DS, now you know why I love log-lin and log-log paper. OWID makes me feel like Christmas came extra early esp as I use rays to judge slopes. But then, the Bode Plot was an epiphany for me. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
"struggling to grasp these statistics and is feeling a bit disoriented" DaveS, I'd say you are more than a bit disoriented. :) Andrewasauber
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
___ @36 John_a_designer:
What’s the purpose in convincing anyone else that it’s all pointless? Do they derive some meaning doing that?
How Militant Atheists Stole Your Sense of Meaning to Enhance Theirs https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/02/atheism-historys-greatest-theft.html?m=1Truthfreedom
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
I didn't mean to disturb anyone here. I'm just asking if anyone else besides me is struggling to grasp these statistics and is feeling a bit disoriented. Another interesting point is that the number of deaths (in the US at least) is significantly lower than some predictions. Even though I expected even more deaths, I'm still shocked at what has actually happened.daveS
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
KF, s Statistics a science? Depends on who you ask. A branch of Mathematics? It incorporates math, yes. A policy tool, too often poorly or even deceptively used? Too Frequently. Or, what? Since this is open-ended I'll use it to state that DaveS is just another troll. :) Andrewasauber
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
ASauber, is Statistics a science? A branch of Mathematics? A policy tool, too often poorly or even deceptively used? Or, what? KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
DaveS, "I trust that it’s reasonably close to the true value." You didn't answer my question. So much for science. Andrewasauber
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Have you ever noticed that the only people here who are trying to cram their beliefs down anyone else’s throat are anti-religious atheists? If I were an atheist I would leave other people alone because life from that perspective is meaningless and purposeless. What’s the purpose in convincing anyone else that it’s all pointless? Do they derive some meaning doing that? At best that is delusional; at worst it’s contemptuous and hypocritical. In the end all they succeed in proving is that atheistic naturalism/materialism is morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt.john_a_designer
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
asauber, I trust that it's reasonably close to the true value.daveS
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
@DaveS As if human life were objectively valuable.Truthfreedom
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
DaveS, "Over 40000 Americans have died of Covid-19 in the last 3 weeks." Is this a scientifically rigorous figure? Andrewasauber
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Does anyone else have a strange feeling of desensitization after watching these statistics for a few months? Maybe in part due to the numeral system we use. The "difference" between 4 and 40 is obviously quite large; the difference between 4000 and 40000 is perhaps less obvious. Keep adding zeros, and we tend to lose track of how quickly the sequence grows. Over 40000 Americans have died of Covid-19 in the last 3 weeks.daveS
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Orthomyxo gets red in the face, stamps his feet, and petulantly insists the COVID-19 numbers are understated. There is strong evidence, however, that they are overstated. He asks for data to support that claim. I give him data. His response: “TO ME, that is not data.” Orthomyxo is so arrogant and consumed by confirmation bias, that he has arrogated unto himself the authority arbitrarily to expel from the category “data” anything that does not support his thesis. His antics are not unique of course. For example, many times a materialist has come into these pages and announced there is no "evidence" for the existence of God. He is then shown multiple strands of evidence for the existence of God. I can't tell you how many times the response has been: "That is not evidence." For Ortho, like the village atheist, evidence that does not persuade him is not "evidence that does not persuade me." It is no evidence at all. It is really quite astonishing that a man who is by all appearances reasonably intelligent should have such a blinkered, almost adolescent, view of the world.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Orthomyxo
To me that really amounts to no data.
And here we have the root cause of the problem on display. Ortho says there is no support for my statement that the Health Minister of Italy said COVID-19 deaths were overstated. I quote Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to the minister, saying exactly that. Ortho's response is two-fold: First he nit picks: He's not the actual minister. Yeah, Ortho, you've got me there. He is the scientific advisor to the minister. Second: He does not agree with me; therefore he does not know what he is talking about when he makes statement's about whether Italy's mortality rate is overstated. Yet again, Ortho's breathtaking arrogance asserts itself. He really is quite shameless.Barry Arrington
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
Ortho, you are simply doubling down at this point. KF PS: I know, academics often want to dig into details, but this can make them dismissive of significant and crdible information relevant to the public and policy makers, where that a credible institution is source is enough. At minimum, this gives us a heads up that we are dealing with noisy proxies, not final results. Oddly, when the shoe is on the other foot, e.g. Climate debates, much the same circles are perfectly willing to give summaries and appeal to consensus.kairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
as I said, the summary data is worthless without detail. I also not the very next line in the telegraph article makes it clear that "This does not mean that Covid-19 did not contribute to a patient's death" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronavirus-patients-died-italy/orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
BO'H: Lessee, we have a pandemic, check. Several countries are overwhelmed with Covid19 cases, check. The areas being highlighted in at least several cases come from such zoooones, e.g. Lombardy, Italy, NY City, check. Medical personnel and facilities are finite so if devoted to an overwhelming challenge they will not be available for more typical cases, check. So, it seems plausible that a good slice of excess deaths beyond normal expectations will be losses of people whose care is not up to the usual standard. Also, some may well be deaths with or accelerated by CV19, as opposed to primarily due to same. In short, we will need to sort out more detailed data to resolve various questions. There is plenty of room for what "Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health" said in summary of findings by presumably Italy's "National Institute of Health" to be true. Especially if there is enough physician discretion that "The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus." KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
Ortho, that insisted on overstatement is disappointing, as precision and accuracy are habits. Yes, we would like to see detailed data, but the summary data provided are just that, data. Given the source, it is likely details are there. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-death-rate.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/06/americas-most-influential-coronavirus-model-just-revised-its-estimates-downward-not-every-model-agrees/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/why-covid-19-death-forecasts-are-wrong-1499243%3famp=1 All of these were in a quick Google search the same with yours bob oh Accompanied with bad testing, corrupted tests that were made by the cdc, And it is a fact that the populace is showing antibodies for it now, I really don’t think we can say one way or the other that something is over estimated or under estimated It’s hard for me to believe that it was underestimated though We’ve had to dial multiple models back, poor testing and lack of confirmation Honestly I’m not trying to be a skeptic to the disease but I think the alarmists are just as has guilty as the Hyper skeptics This is a personal Opinion of mine I am not a fan of economist, long story The one thing that I do watch constantly is worldometer and the cdc, And mostly I’ve been making my judgments off of those numbersAaronS1978
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply