PCR is wildly inaccurate, often giving false positives. RAT albeit still legal is no longer to be used as a substitute for a vax to clear you for travel and work.
Formula one isnt going to inject drivers or travel staff. Jesus, they monitor their diet 100% Everything a F1 Driver ingested is recorded. There are doctors on staff that work in conjunction with Formula 1's Chief doctor to make sure these people are healthy.
You think these people eat the food in the countries that host races? No. they would be on the can 48 hours after they arrived. They have races to participate in, no time for the squirts.
They are specifically using the test for active covaids and not to check for natural immunity.
Now extrapolate that a little further.
The test isn't designed to see if you are infectious, that's a PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) or RAT (Rapid Antigen Test) is there for that. However, the Serology test is by design to confirm if you have been infected. So if you might be contagious and are required to isolate by state law for 14 days, an immune response will register after 12 days. Having confirmation from a PCR or RAT will determine if this is true, as true as you can get with these dodgy tests. The Serology test would determine if you require a vaccine.
Now, two states have used emergency powers to prohibit anyone from using a point-of-care serological test as an acute illness diagnostic tool.
So if you are suspected of having covid you cannot NOW by law, undertake a serology test to check for Immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM). That is an immune response to infection. If you have an immune response to infection and recover, as 99.6% of people do. Then you are naturally immune and to a higher degree than say someone from the current vaccinations regarding covid.
But now you cannot prove (by law in two states) that you do not require vaccination as you already have immunity from prior infection.
Yes, you are twisting it. You cannot by law use the test as an indicator of acute illness. It does not say you can't use it to check for natural immunity. So, I would guess, they still can. You are conflating the two mutually exclusive reasons for using the test.
SA also announced a ban on Thursday, with officials declaring that use of the tests "may adversely affect the prevention control and abatement of serious public health risk prevented by covid-19"
So against the TGA recommendation, it is still the gold standard, SA is saying they don't want to get people's hopes up on missing out on a vaccine.
Health officials stressed that serological tests could be used as a screening tool for people after they have had the infection or for the purpose of public health research.
So no mention of application for contradiction or medical exemption base on provable immunity to the virus from infection. Just for their records and neat book keeping.
[ + ] RedBarchetta
[ - ] RedBarchetta 1 point 3.7 yearsSep 6, 2021 11:57:19 ago (+1/-0)
You think these people eat the food in the countries that host races? No. they would be on the can 48 hours after they arrived. They have races to participate in, no time for the squirts.
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 1 point 3.7 yearsSep 6, 2021 10:18:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug [op] 0 points 3.7 yearsSep 6, 2021 10:40:06 ago (+0/-0)
Now extrapolate that a little further.
The test isn't designed to see if you are infectious, that's a PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) or RAT (Rapid Antigen Test) is there for that. However, the Serology test is by design to confirm if you have been infected.
So if you might be contagious and are required to isolate by state law for 14 days, an immune response will register after 12 days. Having confirmation from a PCR or RAT will determine if this is true, as true as you can get with these dodgy tests. The Serology test would determine if you require a vaccine.
So if you are suspected of having covid you cannot NOW by law, undertake a serology test to check for Immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM). That is an immune response to infection. If you have an immune response to infection and recover, as 99.6% of people do. Then you are naturally immune and to a higher degree than say someone from the current vaccinations regarding covid.
But now you cannot prove (by law in two states) that you do not require vaccination as you already have immunity from prior infection.
Am I though?
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.7 yearsSep 6, 2021 10:43:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug [op] 0 points 3.7 yearsSep 6, 2021 10:54:27 ago (+0/-0)
So against the TGA recommendation, it is still the gold standard, SA is saying they don't want to get people's hopes up on missing out on a vaccine.
So no mention of application for contradiction or medical exemption base on provable immunity to the virus from infection. Just for their records and neat book keeping.