1/F
SARS-CoV-2 lab conspiracy theorists are again misrepresenting scientific fields they have not bothered to try to understand.
This time they're applying their paranoid distortions to immunology. So that deserves a thread.
2/F
When SARS-CoV-2 infects a person, the person's immune system increases production of proteins known as antibodies that bind to SARS-CoV-2.
So if SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the WIV by infecting staff, then that would show up in antibody tests.
Yet...
who.int/docs/default-s…
3/F
Conspiracists don't like that result, so they abuse an antibody study I discussed awhile back.
That study estimates ~4% of Wuhan had increased antibody levels; i.e. ~4% seroprevalence, so ~4% of people previously infected.
thelancet.com/journals/lanwp…
4/F
Conspiracists use that ~4% to estimate the probability that none of the WIV staff would have increased antibody levels.
They say the probability is low, so the WIV results are untrustworthy.
5/F
The conspiracist's analysis is incompetent. But that's typical of lab conspiracists, especially those linked to DRASTIC.
For example, the WIV testing is for March 2020. Yet the Wuhan-wide ~4% is mid-April 2020, when there would be more infected.
thelancet.com/journals/lanwp…
6/F
SARS-CoV-2 infections often happen in clusters, such as infections among those living together or at indoor events.
So infection risk is not equal for everyone, especially if you're not linked to a cluster.
7/F
The Wuhan-wide study shows infection risk varies with various factors.
Laboratory workers would presumably spend more of their work day in conditions that lower infection risk, unlike, for instance, store employees exposed to infected people
thebulletin.org/2020/05/let-ev…
8/F
Infection rates vary by location, even in populations that don't have more procedures + equipment preventing them from being infected (ex: outpatients).
Makes it more unsurprising that infection rate could be lower among lab workers tied to 1 site
jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
9/F
Also note that the conspiracists assume its ~600 people who tested negative for antibody increases. Unclear where they're getting this from.
who.int/docs/default-s…
10/F
So we have a bunch of paranoid non-experts running a shoddy calculation that doesn't take into account things like time-frame, infection clustering, infection-preventing behavior, location, etc.
And they criticize the WHO team with this. 🙄
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
11/F
Looks like a major source of a lot of this misinformation was Steven Quay.
Again. 🤦♂️
Why is any sensible person still taking him seriously on the topic of COVID-19?
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.