It’s her fault IMO, know the rules, but I also can’t believe they didn’t exercise a bit more flexibility.
This behavior is expected. I can’t say I’m surprised at the Taiwanese behavior. I’m only surprised she didn’t know better.
122 days after returning. They say imported.
That’s why I will never get tested inTaiwan. If I ever test positive, even 6 months after my entry they will say it is imported.
Not if it’s better here or in politics…Taiwan sticking a few digs into and ruffling the features of China’s Hong Kong lackey on the topic of the Kung Flu
False positive? Or does the test pick up antibodies acquired months before?
If this person has been out and about spreading the virus, shouldn’t we have had local cases pop up?
That is why they also give the test countdown results. Even if the case was discovered here, they have to label its origin as external.
Sure acquired here (except was infected before outside and now super high cycle)…
But don’t worry, soo much Vitamin D in Food f
Products here it won’t spread… Now it’s warm, summer is here soon. Not to be worried until November or December.
Dunno where you are but I have my heater on as well as a comforter. Not hot enough here!
What do either of those sentences mean?
Is “countdown results” supposed to be “cycle threshold”/“Ct value”?
Why do they have to label cases discovered here as external?
If I understand their explanations from the presser correctly, the numbers drive them to that conclusion.
I don’t believe there exists any remotely reliable correlation between Ct values and time of infection, especially for a single random patient and over the purported timescale (>4 months, assuming the infection happened outside Taiwan as stated). As in, I’m very skeptical that it’s possible for them to judge with any confidence that the infection happened outside Taiwan from a high Ct value (36, apparently?).
Does this mean that after the initial positive PCR test on March 23 he tested negative in a subsequent PCR test (and positive for antibodies)? I’d be more inclined to suspect a testing issue there (i.e., either a false positive, the threshold used is too low, or it took a (very) abnormal amount of time for his body to clear the RNA while he remained fine and asymptomatic)…it seems dubious to me whether this should be considered a “case” at all from this information.
Of course, if they’re just assuming that the infection couldn’t possibly have happened in Taiwan then it follows that they could logically assign this as an “imported case”, subject to the assumption being correct, given that those are the only two options.
Well, I guess if they test the people around the guy and they are negative, that may support their assumption.
Checked the Suez Canal’s reviews on Google maps and a lot of Taiwanese (I imagine) are writing ‘Taiwan can help!’ and other sarcastic stuff there.
That sounds more like Chinese cyber warriors to me…
It’s all a bit convoluted. The Ship is Japanese Owned, flies the flag of Panama, leased by a Taiwanese Company (Evergreen), and is on its way from China to Rotterdam.
Edit - and no doubt under the control of a Suez Canal Pilot at the time.
And unless one of them containers was full of Chinese vaccines being sent to Europe to solve the supposed shortages there, we best resume normal programming in line with the topic.
Flag of convenience, presuming Panama law lets them treat the crew worse or something.
Actually, the Panama flag of convenience spares a ton of fees, especially when crossing the Canal. It is used worldwide by most companies.
If it is a local case then we’d expect to see contacts test positive too. So far this has never happened in any of these grey area cases (of which there have been a great many). Which is why there’s no reason to count them as local cases, and as you say to query the self-testing done.
In New Zealand every time there’s been a random local case it’s lead to a local cluster. The virus doesn’t just disappear for long periods of time, if it’s transmitting it’ll eventually turn up in multiple cases.