CDC Says Nasal Swabs Accurate But Serology Tests Are Only Accurate for Vaccine Testing

COVID-19 PCR Nasal swab tests are considered accurate because of a paper published in January 2020. Two of the lead authors on this paper work for corporations (one is CEO of Tib Miobiol and the other works for GeneX-press) that produce PCR products--including those for COVID-19. Now, last I checked a conflict of interest like this would have made the paper highly suspect, but Eurosurveillance, which claims it can peer review papers and "publication can be arranged within hours of submission" did just that and rapidly published this paper. The WHO has relied on this paper as the basis for is recommendation of RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis. That's right, WHO and the CDC are relying on a paper partially authored by the CEO of a PCR primer company to determine the accuracy of RT-PCR tests and to promote them as the standard for COVID-19 testing. 

Never mind that people can test positive for 90+ days after getting over COVID-19. Never mind that people who have had the virus can have several negative tests in a row (see here and here) and then have even more positive tests without being sick. 

But lets talk also about why the CDC says serology tests are "inaccurate" when these tests are being used (and have been used for decades) to determine vaccine effectiveness. I find it convenient that these tests suddenly became "inaccurate" after serology studies showed millions of humans were already infected with COVID-19 asymptomatically. The CDC believes these are false positives although false negatives are more likely because of the wait time before antibodies are produced. Another problem is the smallpox issue. 

Smallpox did not require a vaccine made from smallpox. Antibodies to cowpox could also effectively prevent the disease (at least that is what the told everyone). Now, in 1980, WHO declared smallpox eradicated and put the spotlight on vaccination as the method of eradication, while also admitting other policies put in place were probably more important. Granted, since everyone was actually vaccinated with cowpox one has to wonder why cowpox was not eradicated (granted they didn't use the "extra policies" to work on eradicating that)... and people vaccinated for smallpox managed to acquire cowpox afterward.

I also find it interesting that there are only about 380 nucleotide differences between SARS and "SARS-2" a.k.a. the virus that causes COVID-19. That means they are about 99% similar. It also means that if SARS had only previously been found in animals, lets say dogs, and COVID-19 appeared in humans, dogs would have been considered the animal that gave the virus to humans. More importantly, these nucleotide differences translate almost the same proteins. Consider apes and humans who are about 96% genetically similar, but only share about 20% of the same proteins that that "same" DNA produces. 

The short of the matter is that just as smallpox had a "major" and "minor" version with one being deadly and the other not so much, SARS apparently has a major and minor (COVID-19) version. Just as smallpox required more than a vaccine to control it (and didn't require lockdowns or masks), COVID-19 will require more to control it than a vaccine--primarily it will require getting rid of these 14th century disease control methods and coming back to the 21st century, where pandemics should not be feared because of our centuries of medical knowledge.