To illustrate why #COVID19 PCR testing is flawed, and why we need transparency on cycles from positive tests, here is a hypothetical: say someone took a $1 bill from me and claimed I was distributing cocaine. Most paper bills have over 0.1 micrograms. academic.oup.com/jat/article/20…
To help determine whether I was in possession of cocaine, my accuser has a machine that can multiply any trace amounts found on a dollar bill by two every cycle it ran. You could set it to any number of cycles - but let's say 40, to match the CDC guideline for #COVID19.
So, multiplying 0.1 micrograms by two 40 times is roughly 110,000 grams, or 110 kilograms, or 242 pounds. So the tiny, trace amounts of cocaine found on my $1 bill is now about the same weight as former NFL linebacker Luke Kuechly. I would be going to jail for a long time.
But, what if my accuser showed some restraint, and set their machine to a more reasonable 30 cycles? Well, amplifying 0.1 micrograms by two 30 times is about 107.4 grams, or 0.1 kg, or 0.22 pounds, about the weight of an average banana. Not great, but not a linebacker either.
Going the other way - what about 45 cycles, as some #COVID19 PCR machines are calibrated to? How much cocaine am I in "possession" of then? That's about 7,760 lbs, or the weight of a 2018 GMC Sierra Denali 4 Door Crew Cab 4WD pulling a trailer. Initially from 0.1 mcg on a $1 bill
This is all very silly, obviously, but it illustrates a point - PCR testing works this same way. It is designed to determine a "positive" test after a predetermined number of exponential doubling cycles - some are 30, some 40, some are even 45. Not all "positive" tests are equal.
Yet this binary thinking is being used to drive policy. It's being used to scare people. This is why "case" numbers are junk. Some people are testing positive at 25 Ct (likely a true positive) while others are at 35 (unlikely a true positive) and others near 45 (even less likely)
My point is: if you amplify a tiny, insignificant, nearly untraceable amount of a material enough times in an exponential fashion, you can find it nearly anywhere. This is why everyone who tests positive from PCR has a right to know at what "Ct" number their positive was found.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is a false narrative emerging based on weak/little evidence that is attempting to blame the current issues around air travel on the removal of mask mandates. This is despite there being minimal disruptions for *two months* post-mandate and no documented outbreaks. 1/🧵
2/ As some of you know I've been periodically tracking flight disruptions for a while post-mandate. This was over a month after the mandate was removed. No issues:
3/ Compare this to over the holidays during the winter/omicron surge, where there were mass cancellations that airlines explicitly said were due to staff out with COVID. This was, of course, while the mask mandates were still in place. nytimes.com/2021/12/25/bus…
1/ It's nearly February 2022 and people are still posting flu data suggesting masks, distancing etc. virtually eliminate influenza. Seasonal viruses "disappearing" is something that has happened previously during other pandemics/epidemics, regardless of policy. This isn't new. 🧵
2/ It is true that in the United States, flu prevalence dropped dramatically once mask wearing became slightly more common (from 58% -> 70%) - but this is a spurious correlation that doesn’t hold up when looking at areas where masking is not-so-common.
3/ Based on the chart above, one could assume that when community masking reaches some threshold, flu prevalence drops dramatically. Yet, looking at influenza surveillance for high-mask areas like New York (86%) and low-mask areas like South Dakota (42%), you see the same trend.
1/ This ordinance proposal that I just read out of Jackson County, MO is truly insane. It essentially grants unilateral authority to the Jackson County Health Department. It would basically create a public health dictatorship.
2/ The health department (ominously labeled 'The Director' in this draft) can implement any public health measures they deem necessary in public and private schools as well as child care facilities, including "exclusion of people with suspected illnesses".
3/ The Director has the power to close any public or private school if they deem it a public health threat. They can close any place of public or private assembly. Presumably, this also includes churches. They cannot reopen unless The Director deems it safe.
This thread is chock-full of self-contradictions and a complete misrepresentation of the physics of fine aerosols, as well as a misunderstanding of how the NIOSH hierarchy of controls works and what types of PPE it represents.
The transmission dynamics of airborne particles are far from "basic physics", but Joseph misleads people here by suggesting we're still dealing with large droplets that predictably fall to the ground. Look up Stokes law Joseph. Strike 1.
Joseph says he was one of the first people to call for masks in this Washington Post article.
In it, he once again talks about "droplets" and suggests fomite transmission is a major threat (it isn't). Bizarre that he'd still share this article. Strike 2.
1/ An article/chart that suggest the state of Missouri's health dept suppressed data that "found masks work" has been making the rounds lately with a few particular posts getting thousands of likes and retweets. In reality, the data completely contradict what they're saying.
2/ First, the timeline they chose was completely arbitrary and includes a significant portion of time when both groups did not have mandates in place. The case numbers started diverging *two months* before the first mask mandates started, suggesting significant confounders.
3/ But what if people started wearing masks prior to mandates? The data don't support that - the number of people wearing masks only significantly increased after the mandates started. delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/indi…
1/ The letter the US DOE sent today to several states saying they are opening an investigation into their ban on school mask mandates is dangerous and misguided. Their main claim is that banning mask mandates in schools creates an unsafe environment for at-risk kids.
2/ They open the letter by saying cases are rising in both the US population and school-aged children - which is true but has nothing to do with masks in schools. They mention rising hospitalizations in kids but fail to mention we are seeing an enormous out-of-season RSV spike.
3/ Additionally, other countries that experienced a delta wave such as the UK did not see rising pediatric hospitalization rates. It doesn't make much sense that delta would be uniquely dangerous to US kids. COVID co-infection with RSV could explain this.