I want to say first that I apologize for what sounded like an outburst. I work in health care and we are fighting hard. Although some areas are fighting the battle harder than where I am located, we are all taking this very seriously. If the reports are true that this is a weaponized Coronavirus, there still may be some unknowns we have yet to deal with. We cannot afford to manage this outbreak any other way than what we have been doing because we do not get a do-over if we are wrong.

Anyone who has become extremely ill from a SARS type respiratory infection when they recover can sometimes have very debilitating after effects from the infection. This is documented from previous outbreaks of SARS and MERS. In addition, the information we have been receiving is telling us that this infection can be spread in the absence of symptoms unlike normal influenza and the common cold which are spread at the beginning of infection – usually a couple of days. COVID-19 seems to be different in that a person can spread the virus prior to becoming sick. Until we have proof that this is not the case, we have to operate given the information we have at this time.

With regard to the first article cited:

“The following is from a medical forum. The writer, who is a widely respected professional scientist in the US, prefers to stay anonymous”

Okay, so this is one person’s opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion but they are giving us nothing more than that opinion.

“The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues.”

True, but that does not mean these patients are sick from influenza or the common cold. We are seeing cytokine storms in patients who are extremely ill unlike normal strains of influenza. Any respiratory viral infection is going to have worse outcomes in patients, who are older, have weakened immune systems, or comorbidity factors.

Some of the symptoms of COVID-19 and Influenza are the same but there are some symptoms that are slightly different. As time goes on we are learning more about what those differences are. Here is one for you. Some of the patients report a loss in taste and smell prior to becoming really sick. That doesn’t happen with the flu or a cold. Those symptoms develop sometimes after a person becomes sick. These differences allow us to come to a clinical diagnosis along with laboratory testing. This is what medical diagnosis is based on.

“We are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus, not specifically for COVID-19”

Incorrect. The test kits are testing specifically for SARS-CoV-2 which is the Coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. Some of the kits first developed were faulty, but those problems have been corrected. (There could have possibly been some funny business going on there, I will admit.)

“The CDC has developed a new laboratory test kit for use in testing patient specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The test kit is called the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel.”

Also in development is a serological test.

“The serology test will look for the presence of antibodies, which are specific proteins made in response to infections. Antibodies can be found in the blood and in other tissues of those who are tested after infection. The antibodies detected by this test indicate that a person had an immune response to SARS-CoV-2, whether symptoms developed from infection or the infection was asymptomatic. Antibody test results are important in detecting infections with few or no symptoms.”

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/testing.html

The writer of the article does not put much faith in either PCR or serological testing as a means for detecting the presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Check for viral load may be useful but transmission is of more concern.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients

“These findings are in concordance with reports that transmission may occur early in the course of infection and suggest that case detection and isolation may require strategies different from those required for the control of SARS-CoV. How SARS-CoV-2 viral load correlates with culturable virus needs to be determined. Identification of patients with few or no symptoms and with modest levels of detectable viral RNA in the oropharynx for at least 5 days suggests that we need better data to determine transmission dynamics and inform our screening practices.”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2001737

RNA viruses have RNA for their nucleic acid – not DNA.

The first challenge of sequencing a Coronavirus genome is that it's made of RNA rather than DNA. Most of our tools for working with nucleic acids are specific to DNA. Fortunately, we've discovered an enzyme called "reverse transcriptase" that takes RNA and makes a DNA copy of it—transcription is the copying of DNA into RNA; this enzyme does the opposite, hence the name. (Reverse transcriptase was first identified in other RNA viruses that need to be copied into DNA as part of infection.) Using reverse transcriptase, researchers were able to make DNA copies of parts of 2019-nCoV as a first step to studying its genome.

“But reverse transcription of samples from infected individuals would simply create a mess of DNA fragments from everything present: the patient's own cells, harmless bacteria, and so on. Fortunately, DNA sequencing and analysis techniques have become so advanced that it's now possible to just sequence the whole mess, irrelevant stuff and all, and let computers sort out what's present. Software is able to take what we know about the average Coronavirus genome and identify all of the fragments of sequence that look like they came from a Coronavirus. Other software can determine how all these fragments overlap and then stitch them together, producing a near-complete Coronavirus genome.

To make a diagnostic test specific to 2019-nCoV, researchers had to look for areas of its genome that don't change rapidly over Coronavirus evolution but have changed enough in this branch of the family that they can be viewed as its distinctive signature. Those sequences can be used to design a means of amplifying a piece of the 2019-nCoV genome using a technique called the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR.”

For more information on the process read: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/how-does-one-test-for-coronavirus-anyway/

Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) detection offers a highly sensitive and specific method of respiratory virus detection and is quickly replacing culture and DFA as the gold standard. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, benefits of multiplex PCR testing include the ability to obtain the results in hours and demonstrated ability to detect more than one viral infection (co-infection) in a patient specimen. Emerging evidence suggests patients with viral co-infections have increased disease severity and more complex clinical management. The ability to know whether there are coinfections to deal with is valuable in treatment planning. A viral load test will not give you that information.

And for the second article cited the statement is made by a software and telecommunications engineer that “Furthermore, there is no proof that a virus causes disease.”

Tell that to someone who is infected with HIV or any of the flavors of Hepatitis. Once again, this is just an opinion.

Both of the articles provided much in opinion and very little in factual evidence. So, until someone can show some hard evidence that what we are doing is wrong and that we are treating the flu, we will continue to take this seriously to protect the public. There is much more I could post here, but I will leave it at this.