• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Lancet Paper Flagging Up Risk of Reinfection is Garbage

by Toby Young
21 March 2021 12:00 PM

We’re publishing an original piece today by Mike Hearn, the former Google software engineer who is the author of this site’s most read piece. (He used to contribute under the name Sue Denim, but has since come out.) It’s a review of a recent paper in the Lancet purporting to show that 20% of Danes infected in Denmark’s first wave became reinfected in the second wave. As Mike reveals, this conclusion was based on assuming the false positive rate of the PCR test is much lower than the researchers had any reason to assume. Here are the first three paragraphs:

A recent paper in the Lancet claims that one in five people might not get immunity from being infected with COVID. The study is invalid. Although these sorts of problems have been seen before, this is a good opportunity to quickly recall why COVID science is in such dire straits.

The research has a straightforward goal: follow a population of Danish people who tested positive in Denmark’s first wave, and re-test them during the second wave to see if they became infected a second time. Denmark has a large free PCR testing programme so there is plenty of data to analyse. Out of 11,068 who tested positive in the first wave, 72 also tested positive during the second wave. This fact is used to advocate for vaccination of people who’ve already had COVID.

The obvious problem with this strategy is that false positives can cause apparent reinfection even when no such thing has happened. The paper doesn’t mention this possibility until page 7, where the entire topic is dismissed in a single sentence: “Some misclassifications by PCR tests might have occurred; however, the test used is believed to be highly accurate, with a sensitivity of 97·1% and specificity of 99·98%.” My curiosity was piqued by this figure because, as I’ve written about previously, at least as of June last year nobody knew what the false positive rate of COVID PCR testing is. The problem is circular logic: COVID is defined as having a positive test, therefore by definition it has no false positives, even though we know this cannot be true.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press: The New York Times reports on a new study showing that eight months after infection most people who have recovered from coronavirus still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come.

Tags: DenmarkFalse PositivesPCR TestReinfection

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Review of Paper Claiming 20% of Infected Are Vulnerable to Reinfection

Next Post

Mixed Messaging on Lockdown Restrictions Has Created a “No-Win” Situation for UK Police

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
karenovirus
karenovirus
4 years ago

Re Toby’s tweet
‘Mixed messages on lockdown enforcement have created a no win position’.

Should read

‘Using strong arm bully boy tactics to illegally assault members of the public on camera has created a no win position for police.’

It should not be difficult to identify this thug in uniform repeatedly kicking an MOP who is already down.
The ginger twat has red shoulder markings and is carrying a red crash hat which, I believe, marks him as a snatch squad goon leader.

Action this day bozo.

Last edited 4 years ago by karenovirus
8
0
karenovirus
karenovirus
4 years ago
Reply to  karenovirus

This one

20210321_133227.jpg
1
0
realarthurdent
realarthurdent
4 years ago

“The New York Times reports on a new study showing that eight months after infection most people who have recovered from coronavirus still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come.”

But we already suspected this given that people who recovered from the original (and very similar to SARS-COV-2) SARS 1 still had resistance to it 17 years later, probably as a result of memory T cells recognising it.

7
0
Andy
Andy
4 years ago

I’m not sure Mike Hearn is barking up the right tree here? The Danish paper reaches its conclusion by comparing apparent re-infection rates (true or false) between two cohorts who had tested positive (truly or falsely) in the 1st wave and tested negative in the 1st wave (again truly or falsely).

They find that the infection rate is just over four times lower.

If false positives played an overwhelming role, the two reinfection rates would be very similar, because a false positive doesn’t require the patient to have the virus, so it would be irrelevant whether they are immune or not.

The actual false positive rate would tend to dampen the result, but it is unclear by how much. They also analyze a subset who were tested frequently (typically 10 times in all) and find a very similar ratio, in fact they find the protection is slightly better. The actual infection rates approximately double between frequently and infrequently tested groups, but that might be due in part to the fact that they are high exposure groups (healthcare, social care) who are more likely to become (re)infected in the first place.

Rather than querying the result itself, a better sceptical response is to ask how this outcome compares against the vaccines and their trials. 80% effectiveness might seem mediocre against the 85-95% claimed for the vaccines, but the vaccine effectiveness is measured against protection against severe symptoms, rather than ability to avoid a positive PCR test. The key difference (I believe) between the vaccine trials and this paper is that the vaccine trials only tested those who first reported symptoms, rather than the entire cohort as here.

1
0
Mike Hearn
Editor
Mike Hearn
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy

Thanks for the comment.

I’m afraid I’m having a bit of trouble following your argument. People who tested negative in the first wave cannot have a reinfection rate.

The key issues here are a bit higher level though:

  1. There were only a small number of apparent reinfection. With even a small FP rate, every single “reinfection” would be noise.
  2. Their explicit conclusion that the immune system cannot be relied upon and everyone must be vaccinated requires that reinfections exist, although we’re talking about a whole 72 people in a population the size of Denmark.
  3. They do not know what the actual FP rate is and use a figure that’s simply made up.

For me point (3) is critical. The research standards just aren’t there. A number that is simply a made up scenario input to a model is passed off in the text as the state-of-the-art belief about real FP rates. What kind of scientist uses made up numbers when they affect their conclusions? How can anyone trust academic output when these practices are rife (which they are)?

You’re arguing the FP rate(s) don’t matter for this analysis, but that surely isn’t the case. As a thought experiment, if the FP rate were 100% then the study would clearly have no validity at all. The FP rate isn’t 100% or even close to that, I’m sure of it, but it can vary between labs and across time, there isn’t a single value for all COVID tests worldwide. Thus FP rates can vary between the two surges or even on a daily basis, as they appear to be driven mostly by contamination. And nobody knows what the actual values are, even though to reach this biologically very interesting conclusion that the immune system has failed to establish memory of the virus in some people, you do have to know it.

0
0
Banjones
Banjones
4 years ago

Re the New York Times article and immunity – I wonder if Doris has had this read to him by one of his minions?

1
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

In Episode 35 of the Sceptic: Andrew Doyle on Labour’s Grooming Gang Shame, Andrew Orlowski on the India-UK Trade Deal and Canada’s Ignored Covid Vaccine Injuries

by Richard Eldred
9 May 2025
4

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim

9 May 2025
by Will Jones

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

10 May 2025
by Dr Raphael Lataster

News Round-Up

10 May 2025
by Toby Young

Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home

9 May 2025
by Will Jones

Ed Miliband’s Housing Energy Plan Will Decimate the Rental Market and Send Rents Spiralling

10 May 2025
by Ben Pile

News Round-Up

55

Teenage Girl Banned by the Football Association For Asking Transgender Opponent “Are You a Man?” Wins Appeal With Help of Free Speech Union

21

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

21

Ed Miliband’s Housing Energy Plan Will Decimate the Rental Market and Send Rents Spiralling

14

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

27

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

10 May 2025
by Dr Raphael Lataster

Reflections on Empire, Papacy and States

10 May 2025
by James Alexander

Ed Miliband’s Housing Energy Plan Will Decimate the Rental Market and Send Rents Spiralling

10 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies

9 May 2025
by Tilak Doshi

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

9 May 2025
by James Alexander

POSTS BY DATE

March 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Feb   Apr »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences