RECENT NEWS

COVID-19 cases in Southwestern region up by eight for second day in a row

September 3, 2021 | 14

Southwestern Public Health was reporting eight new confirmed cases of COVID-19 on Friday, Sept. 3, the same number as on Thursday, Sept. 2.

The number of ongoing cases being tracked by the health unit rose to 33 Friday from 28 Saturday.

For at least the last two weeks, all the new confirmed cases involve the Delta variant, first identified in India, that is considered much more contagious and likely to cause severe symptoms than the original strain.

St. Thomas and area had nine ongoing cases Friday, up from eight Thursday and Aylmer and area three, up from one. Central Elgin and Dutton Dunwich remained at one case each.

In Oxford, Woodstock and area rose to six from four and a new case was discovered in Zorra. Ingersoll and area remained at seven and South-West Oxford at one.

Tillsonburg and area fell to four from five.

Currently, no Southwestern residents are hospitalized with COVID-19.

The infection rate for the Southwestern region stands at 15.6 cases per 100,000 of population.

Across Ontario, 807 new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed on Friday, down from 865 on Thursday.

Posted in News
  • Drake Larsen

    Why is Ontario still using the PCR test for CoV2? And why is the Aylmer Express still reporting positive PCR results as “cases”? The US CDC has deemed this test is not appropriate for COVID diagnosis. Meaningless. This article and the constant reporting of “cases” is meaningless. Tell us how many folks are symptomatic; tell us how many folks are hospitalized; tell us about deaths by date (not reporting date). Anything else is just fear mongering. There’s lots of talk of misinformation these days and it’s true… this article and the many others AE reports on “cases” IS the misinformation. A positive PCR test is not an indicator of infection, it is not a case. This is not science – it’s misinformation and any journalist following the pandemic for the last 18 months should have been able to figure it out by now.

    • nobody

      You appear to be confused/ill-informed.
      The CDC states that a Nucleic Acid Amplification test, if positive, indicates a current infection. A Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR test by another name.
      The CDC does state that a positive Antigen test does not indicate a Covid infection, and is only significant if the testee has not been vaccinated.
      A positive Antigen test result, in a non vaccinated person, would indicate

      prior exposure to the Covid virus. A PCR test would still have to be done to

      determine if the virus was still active in the person tested.

      • Drake Larsen

        Not correct, nobody. PCR is ineffective and CDC will not endorse beyond Dec 31. (No surprise since the inventor described it should never be used to diagnosis viral infection years ago).

        The CDC Lab Alert from July ’21 states:
        “After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

        Yes other assays are available but most of this “case” nonsense in the media is based on PCR testing. This is the primary test deployed in Ontario.

        • nobody

          PCR testing is very effective. It’s been used for decades as a tool to identify pathogens on a molecular DNA level. The CDC still

          has confidence in the PCR testing being done now, but recommends testing sites transition to more selective Covid-19 tests after Dec 31,2021. This recommendation is in part to limit

          false positives for people that have the Influenza virus versus Covid-19. Since it’s not Flu season right now a positive Covid-19 PCR test is probably indicative of a communicative Covid infection.
          As science advances so does the CDC. As the CDC advances so does journalism. How else could you find out about changes in CDC policy/recommendations if not for journalists. Better to criticize lunatics like Joe Rogan or Alex Jones who praise the benefits ivermectin,

          • Drake Larsen

            If PCR was effective the Ontario Health Authorities would report on their cycle thresholds, as well as release regular data on the results of their positive and negative standard controls. But they won’t. I’ve been requesting this information directly and through my MPP with no success. Without those data, any stated argument or statistical analysis as to their effectiveness is hamstrung. But in general it’s well known that PCR is bunk for viral infection diagnosis. Canada’s final report on SAR-1 from 2004 states explicitly that PCR should not be used in future coronavirus outbreaks. But hey, they’ve followed precisely none of that document in this event.

            In the States they are now running different cycle thresholds for injected (24ct) versus not-injected (35ct) individuals making all statistical comparisons between these populations impossible. Furthermore the CDC has changed recommended cycle thresholds across the pandemic – you could map the ebbs and flows of the “cases” by running random samples at their recommended thresholds over time. They can make this data dance very easily – we are surrounded in a sea of 10^31 viruses with 10^8 inhaled with every breath, it’s literally a matter of turning up the dial to find what you want to find.

          • nobody

            Well you obviously think that the Sars-Cov-2 epidemic is a farce.
            Stating that Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, said it should never be used for identification of a virus is just false. A Lie propagated through facebook.
            Kary Mullis was brilliant. He would synthesize LSD for personal consumption as he saw fit. Need I say more?
            Your blather about 24ct vs 35ct is meaningless.
            Maybe you think that being obtuse is a sign of greater intelligence?
            I can assure it’s not.
            A masters in agriculture might make you a better farmer, but still a farmer. I know plenty of farmers with no degree, yet great farmers.
            The salient point to consider is that testing solves nothing.
            Testing, and the results, only justifies restrictions and lock-downs.
            Maximal vaccination will reduce the threat of Covid-19 to that of the Influenza virus.

          • Drake Larsen

            Nobody, that last post is so full of fallacy it hardly deserves a response (strawman, red herring and ad hominem to boot). If you think discussion of cycle thresholds is obtuse banter you obviously have little understanding of the PCR technique, its value and its limitations. Therein is the truth, but you’d rather talk about dead scientists and Joe Rogan. SMH

  • nobody

    For those interested in a scholarly treatment of PCR testing validity, devoid of opinion, here’s a link.

    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/covid-19-pcr-test-reliable-despite-commotion-about-ct-values

    • Drake Larsen

      you can’t even see the forest for the trees. that guy explains it all. start at 8ct he says. haha you think they are running incrementally from 8 when they are actually starting at 38 and doing nothing else. Drive thru covid testing sites running individual samples independently – bwahaha you don’t have a clue. You think it’s kobi beef when it’s an impossible burger.

      • nobody

        A few things I noticed.
        Nowhere in the article, I linked, did the author say “start at 8 Ct”. So comprehension when reading isn’t your strong suit.
        Your loss of the shift key might be related to your BAC level. Your use of Farcebook cliches serves your credibility poorly.
        PCR testing starts with a sample of a bodily fluid or tissue.
        The test is designed to optimize amplification of the DNA fragment being tested for. Other DNA will amplify poorly, or not at all. Each cycle will, if done properly, double the amount of DNA being tested for. A fluorescent dye attaches to the DNA strand in question, and a laser diode activates this dye to give an output that can be measured optically.

        A PCR test does take time. One complete amplification cycle can take 5-20 minutes depending on the technology in use. Testing equipment that can do 96 tests concurrently sells for ~$100k. Ontario pays, according to some sources, $48 for a PCR test. Yet I digress.
        Ontario’s stated PCR Ct is 38. Meaning that after 38 cycles of PCR amplification the test is terminated. Indeterminate.

        The optical detection of virus DNA concentration is still done on each sample after each amplification cycle. A positive detection is noted after each cycle, which is the Ct count for that particular sample.

        Ct count is available to primary health physicians for positive Covid-19 tests. A shame the Farcebook social media warriors are being ignored. Better to shut down Farcebook for the Mental Viruses it spreads.

        Ontario has opted to be proactive in it’s Covid-19 strategy.

        Tests done to a Cycle Threshold of 38 are a measure of “Better safe than sorry”. Most tests will have a lower Ct count.

        Any high Ct PCR tests will undoubtedly be redone several times,

        • Drake Larsen

          1) um, that’s not how it works – the Ct value is set a priori to running the test , no test is run incrementally such as “nobody” describes above. In real science, yes, they’d sample at different rates but that’s because real scientists have replicate samples and run negative and positive standard controls with every plate.

          2) there’s no way a positive would “undoubtedly be redone” the sample is consumed in the test…. one swab, one test.

          3) “nobody”, you pitch ad hominem fallacy attacks on my reading comprehension yet blather about DNA in a discussion about a virus that doesn’t have DNA. nice copy/paste job.

          4) 38 is a ridiculous CT value. The WHO currently recommends 30, and describes it’s “extremely difficult” to get a valid result above 33. The US CDC never ran over 35 that I saw; they currently run the jabbed at 24. I’ve not been able to find recent Ontario PCR protocols to confirm it’s 38… if so that’s pure idiocy. Earlier it was run at 40 here. Most countries have their PCR protocols online, it’s telling that Canada’s are hidden.

          5) USA is revoking the authorization for RT-PRC for SARS-CoV-2 On December 31. News today suggests the UK will abandon such testing this winter as well. Let us hope Canada follows suit – $48 a piece and as of 10 Sept Canada has run 48,324,700 PCR tests (health-infobase.canada.ca). If those numbers are correct that’s $2.3 trillion dollars spent on testing alone — for a test that the primary literature, many scientists, and even Canada’s own 2004 SARS pandemic protocol says isn’t appropriate.

        • Drake Larsen

          Currently peer-review medical journals are blowing up with folks calling high CT rates problematic… you call it “better safe than sorry”. Even the WHO is recommending against anything above 33. You say “most positives are lower” but that data isn’t accessible and it is desperately needed to assess the true nature of Canada’s “case” count. What data can you provide to back up that “most” comment? OK, primary docs may be able to get information for a single case, as you say, but it’s not feeding the models that are driving the policy. From 24-40 we can be talking >70% flip-flop from negative to positive. If we cut the data off at WHO recommended level would Canada’s “case” count fall in half… probably.

          USA is disallowing the qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 on Dec 31. News today suggests the UK will be ditching it soon too. It’s simply not the right tool for population level monitoring. Canada has run over 41 million tests @ $48 that’s $2 billion on a test that PHAC itself warned in 2004 shouldn’t be used for assessing infection in future coronavirus pandemics. Yes, qPCR has some usefulness in more sophisticated examination of the pandemic-over-time (eg variant id), but not for “infection testing”, certainly not in the asymptomatic, and absolutely not to feed the “casedemic” media frenzy, such as Aylmer Express has played party to along with many other outlets.

          • nobody

            Numbers.

            The US figures for cost associated with a single Covid-19 hospitalization is $100,000. Canada has over 26,000 deaths attributed to Covid-19. Total hospitalizations for Covid-19 are obviously much greater. Thus any price paid to test and determine appropriate mitigating strategies to limit the spread of Covid-19 is money well spent. Not sure what PHAC stated in 2004, but I’m sure that science has progressed since then.
            You state that “From 24-40 we can be talking >70% flip-flop from negative to positive”. True no doubt. But going from a cycle threshold of 24 to 40 also increases the sensitivity by a factor of 65,536. So a fair trade-off me thinks. Err on the side of caution. Deal with the noise in followups.

            You like “casedemic” media frenzy, I like “Farcebook” mental virus. If only there was a vaccine.

          • Drake Larsen

            yeah – numbers. Such as the numbers being fed in to the models that are creating the policy that is ruining lives and communities. “Err on caution” you say; feed the models robust, viable, and realistic data I say. A model is only as good as it’s weakest assumption and all Canadian COVID models are being fed crap case data. That “noise” you want to work out later is folks separated from their elders at death, mothers separated from their infants at birth, children traumatized for 18 months and going, and brainwashing of people thinking their neighbors are enemies and harbingers of death.