Very simple test on whether its accurate.
Given that it is being used a clinical test for active SARs CoV 2 infection how accurate is it at detecting an active infection. What is the Type I Error rate for the RT/PCR test.
And given that no one has claimed (who is plausible) a total error rate for mass testing using RT/PCR that is even of the same order of magnitude as the detected prevalence rate for SARs CoV 2 in the general population how can the Type II Error rate for the test be mathematically less than 0.9? At least 90% of any positives will be false positives just due to the mathematics of mass testing. This is very basic statistics.
According to the published literature the minim level of true positives / false positives acceptable for any medical diagnostic test to be used for clinical testing is 4 to 1. At least 80% of all positives should be true positives. And the test should have at least 95% sensitivity rate for those with the condition being tested for.
So by those criteria RT/PCR fails on all counts as any kind of reliable clinical test when used for mass testing of those with who do not have strong symptoms of an active infection. For mass testing RT/PCR has a false negative rate of at least 50% and a false positive rate of at least 90% for a single subject test.
In this scenario, when used for mass screening testing, the only numbers that matter are the Type I Errors and Type II Errors. The mathematical ones. All other factors are minor details.
RT/PCR is not a medically valid test when used for mass screening. Ever. Unless the probable prevalence rate in the sample group is at least the same order of magnitude or greater, which is what you get which testing people with actual active symptoms, the RT/PCR has zero mathematical or medical validity.
Worthless.
The problem here is twofold:-
Sensitivity/Selectivity and proper false positives refer to the detection of RNA (ie the test working).
The "false positives" people claim are different, genuine RNA but not infected. Thats a different thing and outside all the standards for certifying a test.
They fact they're using a test at all without knowing any of the error levels or having ever calibrated it against actual viable disease is inexcusable. You could possibly argue the first week or 2 of the outbreak it was needed but 10 months on and still not done is negligent.
The test is designed as a confirmatory diagnostic *in conjunction with clinical symptoms*. Even the Abbott test guidance notes say that. It isn't designed to be used for standalone screening.
Can rtPCR tell us who is infected and infectious? No
Can rtPCR tell us who has been exposed? Yes
There are also genuine false positives as well as hot and cold positives.
People who have no symptoms and have no reason to suspect they've been in contact with anyone who is infected shouldn't be getting tested.
Lockdowns seem to be worldwide policy, whereby in some places people starve because they are not allowed to earn their food. If lockdowns are unnecessary, why are they being imposed? It may be that scientific studies should be aimed at answering this question.
Lockdowns seem to be worldwide policy, whereby in some places people starve because they are not allowed to earn their food. If lockdowns are unnecessary, why are they being imposed? It may be that scientific studies should be aimed at answering this question.
Simple. It a political decision pure and simple. No science involved. The politicians made a terrible decision in March so this is all part of the cover up of this fact.
In fact if you read the published literature over the last few generations it all says the same thing. Lockdowns and quarantines dont work for a infectious disease like SARs 2. Ever. R0 should never be used for public health policy. Ever. All estimates of RO from mass testing etc are wrong. Always. Mass testing has such high error rates as to be meaningless for public health policy. Should never be used. Face masks only have small effect when worn by people with active infection. In all other cases, useless.
And so on and so on. In fact if you read the public health / epidemiological published literature, papers, textbooks etc, you would be hard pressed to find one single unambiguous positive reference to any of the public health measures used in the last 9 months in Western countries. I could find none since I started looking in January.
This situation is not just a bit political, or a lot political, its all political. 100%. There is no science involved. The simply way to tell when some "expert" is lying is when they start saying in support of some government public health policy - "well, the science says...". Because when you actually search the literature you will never find any robust science that actually supports in any shape or form their statement on public health policy.
