PCR Ct data revealed! For the first time we get a look at the Ct values from a state health lab - these cover March-June 2020. First the scatter of all 5036 positive tests:
Next we look at the distribution of Ct values for all tests:
Finally, the temporal shift in percentage of tests with Ct > 32 (arguably a fair cutoff for infectious viral loads).
We can see even during the peak pandemic months 25% of tests were > 32 - and this was when mainly symptomatic folks were tested. In May-June as many as 2/3 of tests were non-infectious. The virus was waning AND testing protocols changing.
So we have clear indication that over the entire period, at least a quarter of tests were effectively false positives, with as many as 2/3 being false positives in May/June.
And the temporal shift in Ct distributions should be highly valuable in tracking the disease. Certainly these data are very important yet accessing it is extremely difficult! Why?
More important findings from the newly uncovered RI PCR test Ct data!
Recall I previously showed the Ct values of more than 5000 C19 PCR tests from the RI state health lab. Here they are again color coded for estimated infectivity. While all these folks were “positive”...
The green folks were likely not infective and the yellows may not have been. The higher the Ct score, the lower the viral load - the person is “less sick” or has remnant viral rna which can be detected for months while infectivity lasts maybe a week.
Yet it is nearly impossible to obtain Ct score data! Go ahead and ask for it- you will likely get a blank stare or a weak excuse about authorization or data storage. But you won’t get your Ct score. Ridiculous.
Or, an easy way to understand the problems with and damage done by PCR tests for COVID-19
You've probably heard of PCR tests, which are by far the most widely used for COVID-19. Yet many of us are saying that positive PCR test results - “cases” - do not reflect actual viral infections accurately. Why? Read on for a simple analogy...
Let's say there has been a big problem with houses becoming infested with ants [people infected with c19] in your neighborhood. The government says you should get tested for ants [C19] because your ants might "silently spread" to other houses! Scary!
Breaking: No one tested at RI’s airport has COVID! 1% of those tested did however have “FalsePositive19”, the pandemic sweeping the world! Officials warned travelers that they “should be ashamed” that they contracted FP19. 1/6 wpri.com/target-12/11-t…
Meanwhile officials admonish public to “stay home but also to get tested”. The DOH director noted that “if folks don’t get tested, we won’t know how many have FP19. Furthermore, hospitals are filling up with FP19 patients.” (Fact check: 22% of avail beds). 2/6
The Binax Now Rapid Antigen test used at the airport has a 1-2% specificity= false positive rate. Hence any perfectly healthy pop tested with Binax will show 1-2% FP19! Just like the airport. 3/6
Two new studies today effectively destroying the gov’s response to C19.
✅Stringent measures have no correlation to outcome
✅No evidence of asymptomatic spread.
Banish the myths of lockdown effectiveness and “silent spread” and we are back to normal.
First, this study shows death rates were influenced by factors like geography and elderly population (life expectancy) but NOT by stringency of Gov imposed measures frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…
Second, a study of 10M (!) folks post lockdown in China showed ZERO transmission from asymptomatic individuals.
Cov19 analysis for State of RI. RI was hit hard in the Spring like other nearby states. Are we setting up for round 2 or is something else happening? Read on. 1/x
First we look at testing. RI breaks out new tests and repeat tests. Note testing is up huge since Spring, but 75% of the tests are now retests. We can see the jump in retests coinciding with colleges and schools starting up. Presumably most of these retests are mandated screening
We are going to ignore “cases” as a metric because anyone paying attention knows that cases alone is useless. Test positivity rate though can be useful. Here we see that first time test positivity is up steeply while repeat test positivity is effectively nil.