Call me paranoid or jaded, but I have become
increasingly uncomfortable with the news about the current coronavirus outbreak.
Over the weeks that all this has been going
on what we have been told in the public media is that this is a new virus. This is possible, but maybe not. What is probably closer to the truth is that
this is the first time it has come to light with the availabilities of today’s
science technologies.
Coronaviruses are ubiquitous, and while hardly
ever tested, they and rhinoviruses probably are responsible for the vast
majority of common cold that circulate
around the world all the time. Some are
found in non-human mammals (civet cats, camels, bats, pangolins), but many reside
in humans and cause what is usually thought of a benign illness.
Note: while we all understand colds are a benign nuisance in healthy children and adults, common colds are a significant cause of death in the very elderly
(Hung
IFN et al, Unexpectedly Higher Morbidity and Mortality of Hospitalized Elderly
Patients Associated with Rhinovirus Compared with Influenza Virus Respiratory
Tract Infection. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Feb; 18(2): 259. ), at a
rate significantly higher than influenza or covid-19.
A new nucleic acid test was developed very quickly
to help identify the presence of this new virus in people’s noses and
respiratory secretions. It was based on
the nucleic acids of one of the first isolates found in China. The test used is said to be very specific, but I suspect
that it was NOT tested for reactivity with other coronaviruses normally
found in humans. (Maybe I’m wrong on
this but few virus banks would have enough common cold viruses available in
their freezers.
The test that was developed was created in a highly
specialized laboratories under very controlled ideal conditions. There are very specific requirements for how
the sample should be collected and how the sample to be kept cold (between 2-8oC)
and be transported on ice. If routine laboratory
testing is taken as an indicator of how often that happens, we can say with
almost certainty, many do not get that treatment.
Most people who are tested are either totally
symptom free or have a mild cold. That
would be typical of about 80 percent of people living in the northern hemisphere
in January and February. That appears to
be true for people who test positive and who test negative. The vast majority remain that way from the beginning
of their inspection to the end.
If you go into a typical busy laboratory in North
America the number of tests that get incorrectly labelled is very low, and
often when incorrect labelling does occur it is usually with either infants or adults
with communication problems (poor hearing or distraction or communication in a
language other than what the laboratory workers communicate in). Usually busy laboratories have a semblance of
organization. I suspect that when
samples are collected by people working under stress, wearing hazmat suits and
dealing with hundreds of stressed people, the rate of incorrect labelling goes
up significantly.
So just because the label says the sample came from John Smith, maybe it actually came from Joe Smith, or John Smithe, or Jane Smith, or maybe the guy who was in line but just after John Smith.
So just because the label says the sample came from John Smith, maybe it actually came from Joe Smith, or John Smithe, or Jane Smith, or maybe the guy who was in line but just after John Smith.
When these tests were designed it was in a
controlled laboratory with research organized staff. In the real world laboratory where there are
hundreds or thousands of samples, the opportunity for error or confusion while
testing mounts considerably.
Finally, when tests are done in routine
laboratories there are all sorts of Quality Control checks to make sure that
the tests are working correctly.
So in summary, this is a new test being used to
test people who have no symptoms or any way to correlate with results. The samples are being collected in chaotic situations
with high stress. And there is no other confirming
test available.
So with the highest regard for my laboratory
colleagues, I suspect that the risks of errors going by undetected is
considerable.
Bottom line:
Be VERY careful when you listen,
watch or read in the media about what is going on.
The opportunity for the information to be at best misleading and at
worse wrong is probably substantial.
thanks for the information and god with us against corona virus corona news today
ReplyDeleteGreat job for publishing such a nice article. Your article isn’t only useful but it is additionally really informative. Thank you because you have been willing to share information about laboratory. Ducted Fume Hoods for Laboratory Use
ReplyDelete