> As your quote noted, most cows are slaughtered earlier, so generations could be infected without any detection.
They couldn't be detected by those tests anyway if they don't have symptoms, or at least not until shortly before symptoms become apparent.
> Again, it's like when the CDC & Fauci were assuring people that there was no significant community COVID spread when they were also blocking any testing that could detect such spread, by limiting tests only to those that fit their preconceived notion ("only recent returnees from Wuhan").
There are a number of differences here. Most importantly COVID tests can detect if you have COVID even when asymptomatic, but BSE tests cannot detect BSE before it is symptomatic.
> How much, if any, random surveillance of older asymptomatic cows happens that gives you such confidence in the current testing? How many meat cows live long enough to get a good read? Are you sure mild symptoms of ill health might not just get them culled before enough symptoms-to-test by ranchers who, like the USDA, "would rather not know"?
> Your last paragraph seems to reduce to, "we'll only know if there's a lot of it if and when there are a lot of young people with BSE".
First, the testing is of symptomatic cows, not asymptomatic cows, and it is deliberately not a random sample, but a sample of the population that is most likely to have it.
Second, my point is that the lack of any cases of young people with vCJD in the US, let alone widespread cases, indicates that it simply isn't the case that we have some phantom population of cows with BSE that are being let through by the USDA.
> Or at least not block those who want to try it.
I agree the USDA shouldn't block it. However, it isn't unreasonable to prohibit marketing based on the use of such tests if they give an unwarranted impression of safety; allowing that would be misleading advertising. When Creekstone applied to do testing, it was precisely for this reason that they applied, and for this reason they were denied.
> They couldn't be detected by those tests anyway if they don't have symptoms, or at least not until shortly before symptoms become apparent.
Your topmost comment mentioned tests can detect BSE "2-3 months before" symptoms. That'd catch more than waiting for symptoms - especially if done broadly! Waiting for symptoms, when the window-of-detection is so small & so late-in-life, & most cows slaughtered young, seems designed for entities that "would rather not know".
> Most importantly COVID tests can detect if you have COVID even when asymptomatic, but BSE tests cannot detect BSE before it is symptomatic.
This contradicts the explicit 2-3 months before symptoms claim you made previously. Also, being less restrictive about testing could create the necessary market for more sensitive tests. If a cow can have it its full life, but it only reaches detectable levels after years, maybe tests can eventually detect the early presence.
> First, the testing is of symptomatic cows, not asymptomatic cows, and it is deliberately not a random sample, but a sample of the population that is most likely to have it.
Exactly! There's zero testing where it wouldn't already be suspected. So no chance to discover a problem early, or challenge the assumptions limiting testing.
> Second, my point is that the lack of any cases of young people with vCJD in the US, let alone widespread cases, indicates that it simply isn't the case that we have some phantom population of cows with BSE that are being let through by the USDA.
Indeed, but the correlate of that is that the regime you're advocating can thus only detect a problem after a bunch of atypical, or weven "widespread", cases are noticed. That's the signal you're waiting for, before testing more.
That approach sucked for COVID, it'll suck for BSE.
They couldn't be detected by those tests anyway if they don't have symptoms, or at least not until shortly before symptoms become apparent.
> Again, it's like when the CDC & Fauci were assuring people that there was no significant community COVID spread when they were also blocking any testing that could detect such spread, by limiting tests only to those that fit their preconceived notion ("only recent returnees from Wuhan").
There are a number of differences here. Most importantly COVID tests can detect if you have COVID even when asymptomatic, but BSE tests cannot detect BSE before it is symptomatic.
> How much, if any, random surveillance of older asymptomatic cows happens that gives you such confidence in the current testing? How many meat cows live long enough to get a good read? Are you sure mild symptoms of ill health might not just get them culled before enough symptoms-to-test by ranchers who, like the USDA, "would rather not know"?
> Your last paragraph seems to reduce to, "we'll only know if there's a lot of it if and when there are a lot of young people with BSE".
First, the testing is of symptomatic cows, not asymptomatic cows, and it is deliberately not a random sample, but a sample of the population that is most likely to have it.
Second, my point is that the lack of any cases of young people with vCJD in the US, let alone widespread cases, indicates that it simply isn't the case that we have some phantom population of cows with BSE that are being let through by the USDA.
> Or at least not block those who want to try it.
I agree the USDA shouldn't block it. However, it isn't unreasonable to prohibit marketing based on the use of such tests if they give an unwarranted impression of safety; allowing that would be misleading advertising. When Creekstone applied to do testing, it was precisely for this reason that they applied, and for this reason they were denied.