Last week, CDC issued a notice called “Laboratory Alert: CDC RT-PCR Changes for SARS-CoV-2 Testing” through its laboratory outreach communication system, which involved COVID-19 testing and tried to Confused everyone in the process. In the statement, the CDC reported that they are withdrawing the emergency use authorization (EUA) request to the FDA for its CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel, and recommends that anyone using this test switch to a number of feasible and FDA approved alternative. In short, there are many FDA-authorized tests on the market, and there is really no need to continue to apply for this specific test developed by CDC.
In addition, the CDC encourage laboratory:
“…Consider adopting multiple methods that can facilitate the detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such a test can facilitate the continuous detection of influenza and SARS-CoV-2, and can save time and time as we enter the influenza season. resource.”
The second statement confuses the message, making the reason for the withdrawal of the FDA request and the search for an alternative test appearing to be due to the failure of the previous test to distinguish between influenza and COVID. In fact, the CDC is trying to merge the two statements into one. First, they have cancelled the EUA request for their own specific test, and second, they recommend the use of multiple tests-this can determine from a single sample whether there is an RNA marker for influenza A, influenza B or SARS-CoV-2 . As we enter the flu season, this will be essential, because knowing quickly whether a person has flu or COVID will affect their treatment plan. The guidance does not explain why the test is no longer approved, but instead provides recommendations to laboratories about reducing the overall workload, as requests for influenza and COVID testing may increase in the coming months.
Of course, due to the confusion caused by this notice and the previous widespread lack of communication about COVID testing, test types, and the lack of any discussion of false positives and false negatives (and many other related topics), people continue to pay attention to these when it’s the flu. The test may actually be false positive. Due to the failure of medical and health news, there are real flaws in publishing this information—the information should now be common sense—and there is general distrust of anyone who might try to clarify these topics now.
For example, if health policy communications and reporters report on the role of each test type and how it is performed, people may not hesitate about the various data points, they may understand the situation better, and they will not be The information is so doubtful, whether about the test or the vaccine.
Let me explain the PCR test very quickly, it should have been introduced by an expert more than a year ago. The PCR test is the first type of test developed for COVID-19, and it takes the longest time to get results.This is a way different From the other two test types-antigen and serology. The PCR test can also be said to be the most accurate. It focuses on the genetic material of the virus, and the sample must pass through two steps to be positive for COVID-19. First, PCR primers will only “copy” some genetic material when they match a specific gene sequence unique to COVID-19. Yes, unique. Since we have the sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and a variety of influenza viruses, we can be sure that the test is looking for a sequence unique to SARS-CoV-2, and it has not been found in any other viruses.Once the primers find these specific sequences, list here, The sequence is copied. This moves the test to the second stage. These copied genetic material fragments must match the PCR probes. The probe looks for the second smaller part of the gene sequence, and it will only light up as a positive indicator of SARS-CoV-2 when it matches. Therefore, in all types of COVID-19 tests, we can be very sure that the results of the PCR test are very accurate for the virus tested.
Although this is a statement made by the CDC specifically for laboratories, given that we have entered a pandemic for more than a year and a half, every health communication made by any government agency on COVID should be considered by the author and finally widely discussed by the public. A clear and clear definition of what is being discussed should be the basis of the CDC’s internal communication policy-and all individuals or offices covering health policies and information. However, the lack of this clarity is still a catastrophic problem for health and medical information, and one of the main reasons for widespread misunderstandings.
