The trend fit respiratory viruses is to become more transmissible but less lethal over time. Viruses which kill their hosts are statistically less selected for in survival terms. While anything is possible, what is claimed runs counter to the biological orthodoxy. This places... https://twitter.com/reactionlife/status/1352699626516832267

...a greater burden on those who propose it than for something which goes with the grain. Did they clear that appropriately higher bar? No, they didn’t. They used certain characteristics of PCR findings, namely positives for 2 genes which failed to detect the spike protein,

...the argument being that the variant is for a small change in S, so the PCR primers would not bind. But they performed no controls on the testing system. The one I’m permanently angry about, because not attending to it comes as close to deliberate misconduct as I’d want to...

...imply in public, is regular determination of operational false positive rate (oFPR). Show me the oFPR for the testing chain of custody for both outcomes (which are claimed to be variants, and a specific variant, at that). Unless we know what it is - and be aware that this...

...has nothing to do with the intrinsic FPR for just the PCR element of the testing system- then it’s literally impossible to know what fraction of positives are genuine. I’m tired of ignorant people telling me that even though I WAS right about the Bayes Theorem reasons why,

...in late summer, the false diagnosis rate was close to 90%, this doesn’t matter now, because true prevalence is much higher. But is it? How much higher now is true prevalence? You can’t just point to the “cases” numbers & say that’s your proof. I’ve just pointed out that,

...unless you know the oFPR right now, you still cannot even take a guess at the true prevalence. Pressure on the testing system, which consists of overworked, poorly paid & inexperienced lab staff performing manual liquid transfers, is ripe with opportunities for inadvertent...

...cross contamination. Let’s run the thought experiment that such cross contamination occurs. All personally deeply experienced people with years of PCR experienced tell me it’s a certainty, rather than a theoretical possibility. Now ramp up the prevalence by just a little.

Imagine what this does to positivity? It ramps up much more steeply than the change in true prevalence. Now map this back to the claims being made for the variant. You’ve got chaff, not reliable data. Nothing solid upon which to base any Ferguson / Preston scare stories.

Unless & until those running the testing system are INSTRUCTED to run, say, 5-10% of daily volume using indistinguishable and known virus-free swab samples right through the testing system, from arrival in boxes of ziplock bags, along with the clinical swabs, and regular report..

...on the oFPR, I commend to you that you disregard the daily “X thousands of new infections yesterday” headlines. These reports are just not true. These statements assume (if they’ve thought about it at all) that the oFPR is zero, which it certainly isn’t. That value could...

...be large enough to account for most of the “cases” being reported daily. How many tests are being run daily? Work out what % of that the claimed number of new infections are. If under 10%, I’d lay a bet a great deal of the “cases” are false positives. I could be proved wrong..

...in an afternoon & at visually no incremental cost. But they don’t do it, even though I’m an irritant & they could easily show I’m wrong. You can deduce for yourself why they don’t. It’s because I’m right.