The available, online ISAv results have been posted numerous times on numerous threads and include numerous test results from numerous places in BC.
What is in question is not the genetic source of the disease-vector (European/Norwegian), nor that they found ISAv in the test samples - but rather - if the tests could be confirmed using tissue culture (problematic - esp. for ISAv variants) - and what constitutes a "weak" verses a "false" positive using CFIA's methodology. CFIA uses an arbitrary and inappropriate cut-off as number of cycles of PCR amplification that works well for FF couch potatoes and the high titre level that they can carry and still be fed and protected from predators - very much unlike the wild fish - and what then should be the CT number for wild samples? That's the debate.
However, since this has drastic trade implications for the open net-cage industry - and CFIA has convinced itself that it's primary job should be protecting trade & "winning the PR battle"- rather than the wild stocks - and ISAv is under CFIAs purview - they get to seize samples and shut down labs & issue speaking notes for ministers using script writers. Situation resolved.
That also works for the FF supporters - and they are also much happier if we don't have this discussion over ISAv - and this all magically and quietly goes away - which it hasn't.
As I explained previously on another thread - highly virulent diseases - and most introduced diseases start out that way - are a 2-edged sword. Bad for the host - but good that the host dies quickly before it gets a chance to spread the disease vector among high numbers of other uninfected hosts.
I used the analogy of chimney sparks hitting wet grass. Burns out quickly. It remains yet to be seen if ISAv will indeed die-out - or - as many viruses do - morph into a less virulent disease-causing organism. I guess - we will see how that goes - whether we want to or even agreed to this open experiment over the next few years.
As far as PRv goes - I would point you to the test results in the supporting information for the latest PRv article in PLOS1 at:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793#sec015
Look at the Table S1 - Oweekeno Lake salmonid samples - where 2.3 - 10.5% of the samples tested positive for the European PRv. The question now is what population-level effect is that introduced PRv having on the wild stocks?