Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The CDC farked up Zika testing for the same reason it farked up COVID-19 testing: because they wanted to test more than one thing at a time   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Barack Obama, Aedes aegypti, Rio de Janeiro, 2016 Summer Olympics, Mosquito control, Zika virus, United States, Summer Olympic Games  
•       •       •

3712 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 04 Jul 2020 at 7:05 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-04 1:15:48 PM  
When this is all over, I wouldn't mind a law requiring us to use WHO tests if there aren't any better ones available.
 
2020-07-04 1:23:48 PM  
TFA doesn't state it, but this reeks of manipulation by outside monied interests.
 
2020-07-04 1:28:14 PM  

themindiswatching: When this is all over, I wouldn't mind a law requiring us to use WHO tests if there aren't any better ones available.


We have to rejoin WHO first.  Or was that just an empty threat that meant nothing?
 
2020-07-04 1:31:07 PM  
The CDC appears to have sided with the virus. It helps their funding.
 
2020-07-04 3:00:00 PM  
Yes, how dare the Centers for Disease Control make any sort of centralized effort to control diseases.
 
2020-07-04 3:47:10 PM  

King Something: Yes, how dare the Centers for Disease Control make any sort of centralized effort to control diseases.


It's not that the centralization it's the not-invented-here-ism that seems to permeate the culture due to cross pollination with the FDA, pharmaceutical, and medical labs industries
 
2020-07-04 7:12:14 PM  
Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?
 
2020-07-04 7:17:59 PM  
Drink safety is important.
imagesvc.meredithcorp.ioView Full Size
 
2020-07-04 7:18:06 PM  

themindiswatching: When this is all over, I wouldn't mind a law requiring us to use WHO tests if there aren't any better ones available.


Belief in a test being "better" is what caused both problems.
 
2020-07-04 7:19:32 PM  
Because they were testing for Zima, not Zika.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-04 7:19:47 PM  

Bob's Your Uncle: Drink safety is important.
[imagesvc.meredithcorp.io image 550x550]


Dammit!
 
2020-07-04 7:19:48 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


Because they had no Schlitz malt liquor.
How can you run a respectable establishment with no Schiltz
malt liquor??
 
2020-07-04 7:21:57 PM  

Bob's Your Uncle: Drink safety is important.
[imagesvc.meredithcorp.io image 550x550]


Horrible booze, and an even worse chemotherapy drug.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-04 7:21:58 PM  
Ceteris paribus is not a particularly difficult concept.
 
2020-07-04 7:24:50 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


FOX News has rotten whatever brain-like cells you were given.
How sad.
 
2020-07-04 7:27:21 PM  
EMT checking in...

Does anyone know what they actually count as a test?

In hospitals this is what happens

Go to the ER - TESTED
Get admitted - TESTED
Discharged to a rehab - TESTED
Get transferred to a higher level of care? TESTED

I've had patients who were tested 3-4 times before ending up in the back of my ambulance and they're STILL considered a "risk" because infectious disease refuses to clear them as COVID free..

I'm really curious if they're counting individuals as tested, or each time the same person has been tested numerous times..
 
2020-07-04 7:27:35 PM  
I enjoy having so many things to make fun of on a mock news site.

But Jesus Fark it's obvious we can't even get together to help each other I don't know where I'm going with this,l YOU DID THIS TO ME
 
2020-07-04 7:28:49 PM  
i guess what I'm saying is I didn't think it would take a pandemic to get us to come together.

Jesus
 
2020-07-04 7:44:32 PM  

subsetzero: Naming a virus for a river


1/10  but real nice try
 
2020-07-04 7:45:08 PM  
Sure. Why not? If you can't do perfect, don't try.

Can't end racism. Don't try.

Can't end poverty. Don't try.

Can't stop everyone from dying -- including all those children everyone talks about. Don't try.

The American Way. Be perfect. Or don't try.
 
2020-07-04 7:52:46 PM  

themindiswatching: When this is all over, I wouldn't mind a law requiring us to use WHO tests if there aren't any better ones available.


I'm not really prepared for an exploding drum set.
 
2020-07-04 7:58:05 PM  
Monroe's review cited the favorable conclusion about sensitivity reached by Trioplex's designer, Munoz, and described the available data for comparing the two tests as "inconclusive and contradictory." His review also said, "It was reasonable to not share this information with external public health laboratories, as it did not provide any meaningful information for laboratories to act upon."


Monroe is an idiot. To take the data of the test designer over that of labs that put the test into practical use is a colossal mistake. Even if Munoz wasn't cooking the results in his favor, how the test works in his hands isn't what matters, it's how it work out in the real world. There were multiple independent lines of evidence for reduced sensitivity. As scientists, they were obligated to share that information. As government officials in charge of a public health issue, they have a separate but similarly compelling duty to inform.

It's criminal negligence on Monroe's part. I've worked in diagnostic testing. I recognize the failures. He deserves a pillorying.
 
2020-07-04 8:01:20 PM  

themindiswatching: When this is all over, I wouldn't mind a law requiring us to use WHO tests if there aren't any better ones available.


I wouldn't be so quick to pass off the responsibility.
The story documents a certain brand o bureaucrat that needs to be purged so that the quality scientists at the CDC can do their job. Beef up the Inspector Generals with people with domain expertise that can clean house.
 
2020-07-04 8:05:12 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


Since when are rivers race or countries?  It's not the Uganda virus.  It's the Zika virus.

To simply blame it all on China would be forgetting the whole hoax part, the Europe travel ban, and south Korea's success.
 
2020-07-04 8:11:33 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


Actually, it's a forest in Uganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zika_Fo​r​est
 
2020-07-04 8:19:23 PM  

libranoelrose: i guess what I'm saying is I didn't think it would take a pandemic to get us to come together.

Jesus


"Hang in there, we're all in this together". as Jesus said to the thief next to him.
 
2020-07-04 8:35:05 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


Calling Covid the 'COVID-19' is not bigoted IMHO, although we have at least two better names now.

Calling it the "China Plague" is an obvious attempt to smear the whole country.  And counterproductive.

Besides, everybody with half a brain knows what China's CCP did, and the result.
 
2020-07-04 8:35:09 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


You misspelt Black.
 
2020-07-04 8:36:09 PM  

Animatronik: subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?

Calling Covid the 'COVID-19' is not bigoted IMHO, although we have at least two better names now.

Calling it the "China Plague" is an obvious attempt to smear the whole country.  And counterproductive.

Besides, everybody with half a brain knows what China's CCP did, and the result.


Ahh, caught by a filter, should read 'Wooohaan Viruss' in the first part.
 
2020-07-04 8:39:49 PM  

GardenWeasel: TFA doesn't state it, but this reeks of manipulation by outside monied interests.


Precisely what happened.
 
2020-07-04 8:52:48 PM  

GardenWeasel: TFA doesn't state it, but this reeks of manipulation by outside monied interests.


Nah, the whole article is pretty clear why they wanted more data: never let a crisis go to waste. Since there was going to be mass testing going on anyway, why not test for as many things as possible? We do a similar thing if we have a data center outage at work for power reasons: hide as many other outages as you can behind it. Similarly, if you're testing for one coronavirus, you may as well test for as many as you can at the same time.

Of course, the CDC is now brutally incompetent, so this plan didn't work.
 
2020-07-04 8:54:04 PM  

wademh:

Monroe's review cited the favorable conclusion about sensitivity reached by Trioplex's designer, Munoz, and described the available data for comparing the two tests as "inconclusive and contradictory." His review also said, "It was reasonable to not share this information with external public health laboratories, as it did not provide any meaningful information for laboratories to act upon."


Monroe is an idiot. To take the data of the test designer over that of labs that put the test into practical use is a colossal mistake. Even if Munoz wasn't cooking the results in his favor, how the test works in his hands isn't what matters, it's how it work out in the real world. There were multiple independent lines of evidence for reduced sensitivity. As scientists, they were obligated to share that information. As government officials in charge of a public health issue, they have a separate but similarly compelling duty to inform.

It's criminal negligence on Monroe's part. I've worked in diagnostic testing. I recognize the failures. He deserves a pillorying.


Yes, this definitely reeks of "There's nothing wrong with my test"
 
2020-07-04 8:56:00 PM  

subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?


Ebola would like a word...
 
2020-07-04 8:57:54 PM  

styckx: EMT checking in...

Does anyone know what they actually count as a test?

In hospitals this is what happens

Go to the ER - TESTED
Get admitted - TESTED
Discharged to a rehab - TESTED
Get transferred to a higher level of care? TESTED

I've had patients who were tested 3-4 times before ending up in the back of my ambulance and they're STILL considered a "risk" because infectious disease refuses to clear them as COVID free..

I'm really curious if they're counting individuals as tested, or each time the same person has been tested numerous times..


Well, the rule in Florida is if you're negative each test you take counts, but if you're positive you've only had one test ever.
 
2020-07-04 9:00:52 PM  

vinn01: subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?

Ebola would like a word...


And Lassa fever
 
2020-07-04 9:08:13 PM  

Animatronik: subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?

Calling Covid the 'COVID-19' is not bigoted IMHO, although we have at least two better names now.

Calling it the "China Plague" is an obvious attempt to smear the whole country.  And counterproductive.

Besides, everybody with half a brain knows what China's CCP did, and the result.


Those of us in early January calling it the Hong-Kong-Fluey and Kung-Flu were doing so in the spirit of bad martial arts movies.  With the arrival of arseholes using it to smear an entire race of people, you'll notice most of us had stopped by early March.  There was no love in how they said it.

I still blame the Chinese government, the WHO, and our own CDC for each of their individual failures along the way.  And I blame our President, state governors, and especially the administration of hospitals, for the dire situation that medical workers were in during the April surge.

Now we're at a stage where I directly blame the President, and the foreign influence he encourages, for everything.  It's all on you now, Mr. President.  You're the one who treated the country like a reality TV show, making people fight for entertainment.

"Rome is burning.  You've got your fiddle out.  And you're not from Georgia."

I'd love to see Biden use that as his final words in a debate.
 
2020-07-04 10:02:14 PM  

slobberbone: Sure. Why not? If you can't do perfect, don't try.

Can't end racism. Don't try.

Can't end poverty. Don't try.

Can't stop everyone from dying -- including all those children everyone talks about. Don't try.

The American Way. Be perfect. Or don't try.


Pretty much.
 
2020-07-04 10:21:44 PM  

aungen: I still blame the Chinese government, the WHO, and our own CDC for each of their individual failures along the way.  And I blame our President, state governors, and especially the administration of hospitals, for the dire situation that medical workers were in during the April surge.


This is reasonable.  Anybody pining for the leadership of the WHO is missing the boat.
 
2020-07-04 10:28:19 PM  

GardenWeasel: King Something: Yes, how dare the Centers for Disease Control make any sort of centralized effort to control diseases.

It's not that the centralization it's the not-invented-here-ism that seems to permeate the culture due to cross pollination with the FDA, pharmaceutical, and medical labs industries


That, combined with them wanting a testing panel for multiple pathogens. If you just care about the total amount of data, a panel is better. However, the only data we needed from that test was Covid-19 infection rate.
 
2020-07-04 10:32:46 PM  
ZIKA ZAKA ZIKA ZAKA OI OI OI!

/got nuthin
 
2020-07-04 10:44:21 PM  

slobberbone: Sure. Why not? If you can't do perfect, don't try.

Can't end racism. Don't try.

Can't end poverty. Don't try.

Can't stop everyone from dying -- including all those children everyone talks about. Don't try.

The American Way. Be perfect. Or don't try.


Do.  Or do not.  There is no try.
 
2020-07-04 10:59:29 PM  

baron von doodle: GardenWeasel: King Something: Yes, how dare the Centers for Disease Control make any sort of centralized effort to control diseases.

It's not that the centralization it's the not-invented-here-ism that seems to permeate the culture due to cross pollination with the FDA, pharmaceutical, and medical labs industries

That, combined with them wanting a testing panel for multiple pathogens. If you just care about the total amount of data, a panel is better. However, the only data we needed from that test was Covid-19 infection rate.


I will argue that a panel of respiratory diseases would make some sense. A person shows flu-like symptoms, or other respiratory disease symptoms, and you give them a test. Is it influenza A, influenza B?

Here's the list for one Respiratory Panel: Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus HKU1, Coronavirus NL63, Coronavirus OC43, Human metapneumovirus, Human rhinovirus/enterovirus, Influenza A, subtypes 2009H1N1, H1, H3, Influenza B, Parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, 3 and 4, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

Pursuing inclusion in a panel is a laudable goal.

Delaying the availability of a Covid-19 test, needed to detect the arrival of a risky new pathogen in order to do it all in an elegant manner is not a good idea.

The good thing about putting it in a panel is that you can quickly get the panel to be widely used. Otherwise, you have to get people to add your surveillance test for otherwise routine ER visits. Compliance would be spotty. Even if the CDC pays for part of it, the ER is going to do their billing magic to make some people pay some extra cost related to specimen processing. (USA USA USA USA)

So the attempt to build a panel wasn't a bad idea. The failure to properly QC their own test, and respond to the reality of their own test --- that was the failure.
 
2020-07-04 11:20:40 PM  

wademh: baron von doodle: GardenWeasel: King Something: Yes, how dare the Centers for Disease Control make any sort of centralized effort to control diseases.

It's not that the centralization it's the not-invented-here-ism that seems to permeate the culture due to cross pollination with the FDA, pharmaceutical, and medical labs industries

That, combined with them wanting a testing panel for multiple pathogens. If you just care about the total amount of data, a panel is better. However, the only data we needed from that test was Covid-19 infection rate.

I will argue that a panel of respiratory diseases would make some sense. A person shows flu-like symptoms, or other respiratory disease symptoms, and you give them a test. Is it influenza A, influenza B?

Here's the list for one Respiratory Panel: Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus HKU1, Coronavirus NL63, Coronavirus OC43, Human metapneumovirus, Human rhinovirus/enterovirus, Influenza A, subtypes 2009H1N1, H1, H3, Influenza B, Parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, 3 and 4, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

Pursuing inclusion in a panel is a laudable goal.

Delaying the availability of a Covid-19 test, needed to detect the arrival of a risky new pathogen in order to do it all in an elegant manner is not a good idea.

The good thing about putting it in a panel is that you can quickly get the panel to be widely used. Otherwise, you have to get people to add your surveillance test for otherwise routine ER visits. Compliance would be spotty. Even if the CDC pays for part of it, the ER is going to do their billing magic to make some people pay some extra cost related to specimen processing. (USA USA USA USA)

So the attempt to build a panel wasn't a bad idea. The failure to properly QC their own test, and respond to the reality of their own test --- that was the failure.


I kind of alluded that the concept was an ok idea. The execution was awful.
 
2020-07-04 11:36:28 PM  
There needs to be an ad about President Pandemic-Recession's lies about testing.
 
2020-07-04 11:40:16 PM  

aungen: Those of us in early January calling it the Hong-Kong-Fluey and Kung-Flu were doing so in the spirit of bad martial arts movies.


I have news for ya
 
2020-07-05 12:06:40 AM  

TrashcanMan: aungen: Those of us in early January calling it the Hong-Kong-Fluey and Kung-Flu were doing so in the spirit of bad martial arts movies.

I have news for ya


Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-05 12:12:37 AM  

wademh: Monroe's review cited the favorable conclusion about sensitivity reached by Trioplex's designer, Munoz, and described the available data for comparing the two tests as "inconclusive and contradictory." His review also said, "It was reasonable to not share this information with external public health laboratories, as it did not provide any meaningful information for laboratories to act upon."

Monroe is an idiot. To take the data of the test designer over that of labs that put the test into practical use is a colossal mistake. Even if Munoz wasn't cooking the results in his favor, how the test works in his hands isn't what matters, it's how it work out in the real world. There were multiple independent lines of evidence for reduced sensitivity. As scientists, they were obligated to share that information. As government officials in charge of a public health issue, they have a separate but similarly compelling duty to inform.

It's criminal negligence on Monroe's part. I've worked in diagnostic testing. I recognize the failures. He deserves a pillorying.


I don't understand the need to multiplex everything.  I think that the upper management people treat nucleic acid amplification as a magic tool that always works correctly.  They don't realize how sensitive each reaction is to small changes in temperature, template concentration, etc., and that what works in your PCR machine may not work in the PCR machine next door.  It is frustrating to keep hearing about testing failures when there are thousands of postdocs and benchtop techs in the US that could troubleshoot a single PCR reaction.
 
2020-07-05 12:22:33 AM  

piledhigheranddeeper: wademh: Monroe's review cited the favorable conclusion about sensitivity reached by Trioplex's designer, Munoz, and described the available data for comparing the two tests as "inconclusive and contradictory." His review also said, "It was reasonable to not share this information with external public health laboratories, as it did not provide any meaningful information for laboratories to act upon."

Monroe is an idiot. To take the data of the test designer over that of labs that put the test into practical use is a colossal mistake. Even if Munoz wasn't cooking the results in his favor, how the test works in his hands isn't what matters, it's how it work out in the real world. There were multiple independent lines of evidence for reduced sensitivity. As scientists, they were obligated to share that information. As government officials in charge of a public health issue, they have a separate but similarly compelling duty to inform.

It's criminal negligence on Monroe's part. I've worked in diagnostic testing. I recognize the failures. He deserves a pillorying.

I don't understand the need to multiplex everything.  I think that the upper management people treat nucleic acid amplification as a magic tool that always works correctly.  They don't realize how sensitive each reaction is to small changes in temperature, template concentration, etc., and that what works in your PCR machine may not work in the PCR machine next door.  It is frustrating to keep hearing about testing failures when there are thousands of postdocs and benchtop techs in the US that could troubleshoot a single PCR reaction.


The details went whoosh, but I'm interpreting your post as, "the bosses wanted stuff that the people who actually know stuff thought was a bad idea"?
 
2020-07-05 12:26:21 AM  

baron von doodle: piledhigheranddeeper: wademh: Monroe's review cited the favorable conclusion about sensitivity reached by Trioplex's designer, Munoz, and described the available data for comparing the two tests as "inconclusive and contradictory." His review also said, "It was reasonable to not share this information with external public health laboratories, as it did not provide any meaningful information for laboratories to act upon."

Monroe is an idiot. To take the data of the test designer over that of labs that put the test into practical use is a colossal mistake. Even if Munoz wasn't cooking the results in his favor, how the test works in his hands isn't what matters, it's how it work out in the real world. There were multiple independent lines of evidence for reduced sensitivity. As scientists, they were obligated to share that information. As government officials in charge of a public health issue, they have a separate but similarly compelling duty to inform.

It's criminal negligence on Monroe's part. I've worked in diagnostic testing. I recognize the failures. He deserves a pillorying.

I don't understand the need to multiplex everything.  I think that the upper management people treat nucleic acid amplification as a magic tool that always works correctly.  They don't realize how sensitive each reaction is to small changes in temperature, template concentration, etc., and that what works in your PCR machine may not work in the PCR machine next door.  It is frustrating to keep hearing about testing failures when there are thousands of postdocs and benchtop techs in the US that could troubleshoot a single PCR reaction.

The details went whoosh, but I'm interpreting your post as, "the bosses wanted stuff that the people who actually know stuff thought was a bad idea"?


I love it when knowledgeable talk shop, even when I have no idea what they're saying. It's a glimpse into a different world.
 
2020-07-05 1:11:28 AM  

scanman61: vinn01: subsetzero: Zika virus? What sort of racist bullshiat is that? Naming a virus for a river in Uganda a predominantly black part of the world.  How can they get away with that?

Ebola would like a word...

And Lassa fever


The WHO issued guidelines in 2015 to stop naming diseases after places, people, or animals, because of the obvious harms that can cause. It did not change disease names retroactively, so Zika, Ebola, Lassa, and the Spanish Flu are referred to by their original names based on places, while COVID-19 was officially given a non-geographic name, which is used by almost all officials outside the US.

Note that the virus responsible for COVID-19 is referred to by the WHO as "the virus responsible for COVID-19", or "the COVID-19 virus" for short, as they felt that would be easier for the public to understand, compared to SARS-CoV-2, the name chosen by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which may be confused with SARS-CoV, or the SARS virus, discovered in 2002.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.