THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!

We finally get CONFIRMATION that our estimate of Fake Epidemic Creation thru detection of OLD PCR+, non infective, noted as cases, IS CORRECT.

We get access to a new data set, number of + for test technique, that validate our method's values.

Thread:
You can find the model in the link.

We wanted to know the share of PCR+ that were OLD non infectious, using Ct data; and thus finding true Epidemic.

For model development we needed to calculate the number of test that were official positive by type.

The premise is that any test MUST find same TRUE positivity. Then you can develope equations:
PCR+=(True+)+(False+)+(Old+)
ANTIGEN+=(True+)+(False+)

Solving, we get the number of test by type that MODEL PREDICTS must have been officially positive.

Highlighted in foresee graph:
We DIDN'T KNOW THAT NUMBER

It was a consequence of our predicted different positivities for PCR&Antigen
The number RELIED on true official Ct values, that we used 2 allocate the Old+ proportion in PCR+

Without OLD infections there should be very similar PCR&Antigen positivities
Now, the confirm.
We get new data series, INCLUDING the OFFICIAL NUMBER OF POSITIVES THRU TEST TYPE.

It was thread's 1st image, here softened and zoomed.

We have THIS data for Regions.
We can check our prediction with the official measured data, and thus, our model's estimates
And here our predicted (red) Vs official (green) PCR&Antigen positives.

If our OLD non infectious estimates weren't RIGHT, this curves won't look any similar.

It implies PCR overPositivity IS directly related with Ct, whose true infection limits are the scientifically known.
We also checked Predicted Vs Observed positivities for test type.
Of course, as they're direct function of positives thru test done, our prediction for test type Positivity is accurate.

Again, IT SHOULDN'T.

It's a proof of OLD PCR+ modifying positivity.
Here, the OFFICIAL positivity for test type. Discounting the little, and similar, share of False+ they MUST be constantly similar, catching the prevalence in tested universe.

In the proportion graph you can notice it varies STRONGLY over time.
PCR Positivity is up to 80% higher!
Our Ct study assigned that difference in positivities as a function of known Ct values.

Reality fitting PRECISELY in the same proportions means our model is right.

Only an average of ~60% Spain's PCR+ IS INFECTIVE.
The other 40% is old infections: FAKE.

We're REALLY proud.
Data set is:

For Positives for test type:
cnecovid.isciii.es/covid19/#docum…

For Test performed by type:
mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/…

For Madrid Ct info:
comunidad.madrid/noticias/2021/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with plaforscience

plaforscience Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @plaforscience

11 Apr
Apart for the amazing confirmation of the existence of OLD PCR+ noted as cases, we can use the official data on cases detected for test type to do some interesting analysis.

1st wave was obviously a PCR issue, not interesting except for little scale due to lower testing.
Zooming in 2nd&3rd Waves we observe a CLEAR disproportion between them, depending on test type.
2nd wave was over 2/3 of 3rd thru PCR, but less than 1/3 thru antigen!!

The MUST be same proportion. Why is there EXTRA PCR+ positivity?!

We've talked about it LONG AGO:
OLD cases.
That shows even clearer when you draw observed positivity for PCR&Antigen.

3rd wave, the winter seasonal expected wave, shows similar positivities, meaning every kind of test founding the same, but 2nd wave is unbalanced, with only a 60% of positivity thru Antigen.
Read 4 tweets
4 Apr
We've refined our calculations with Madrid Ct data. We've included pure false positivity, and isolated PCR&Antigen real/official series.

The 2nd wave is showing it's mainly Human made thru test policy, which maintained high proportional levels thru winter: Xmas irresponsibility Image
We can calculate official positive #test for each kind of test, considering Cts

Despite the variable proportion PCR+ are always more important in Epidemic creation, specially weird spikes, not shown in the more natural Antigen+
Guess when is more different?
Yep, Irresponsible! Image
We observed a relation between official positivity and inverted average Ct.

It does mean positivity is contaminated with high test pressure, creating more positivity than real.

We also observe average Ct<28 relates with Epidemic growth, while higher values point descent/plateau Image
Read 5 tweets
4 Apr
I bet you've never seen this graph. I haven't.

It's so interesting: just dividing the test done for the cases found the PREVIOUS week, we can see test pressure is NOT dependent on Epidemic spread BUT political intentions.

It's Madrid data, as we're currently working with.
One usual myth used by trølls and or government, sorry for the redundance, is claiming that is not that rising the number of test increases cases, BUT the raise in case forces increase in test.

It's FALSE.

It's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE:
More test pressure when lower cases found.
For graph dummies, red line means up to 25 test/case-found are made with low spread, but only 5 during spike.

It should be a straight line, the more u find the more you search, or a Crisis Watch, curve related to Epidemic curve: u search even more when u find.

It's THE OPPOSITE
Read 6 tweets
1 Apr
Twitter is build for noise.
Very often I need to Google my own old tweets, as TL is a dark, chaotic, bottomless pit.

I'm gathering here our team's
main original work, with their link and a little description, as an easy way to find them, both for me and anyone interested.
This is our statistically true daily infection reconstruction.
It uses the time from infection to death curve proportionally for each decease.

Deaths is the less manipulable series, and time curve is not disputed even among covidlievers.

April 2020

Variables affecting Rt in complex seasonality model.

It considers Climate, Previous/crossed Immunity, Biological Balance among respiratory viruses & Herd Immunity, showing seasonal HI threshold creation.

Valid for moderate climate (northern) hemisphere.

Read 8 tweets
31 Mar
The Madrid Region dossier we've been commenting lately is full of proofs of appalling intentions from our gov'ts.

The sheet on universal screenings shows the LACK of test confirmation after a positive.
The protocol includes not this step, and ONE positive is noted as 'Case'
There IS redundant check for NEGATIVES, as we see in the Close Contact protocol sheet.

Antigen negative is double checked thru PCR.
It also shows that EVEN negative test have quarantine consequences.

If every PCR+ mean case, without check, it means accepting ALL FALSE POSITIVES
But the worst antiscientifical manipulation, for me, hides in the footnote

PCR is specially recommended in LOW PREVALENCE SCREENINGS

There's a purely MATHEMATICAL rational for low prevalence suffering high proportion of False Positives, plain, non "covid is new" debatable truth
Read 5 tweets
30 Mar
We have shown the declared Madrid region lie in terms of active infections. Active infections were 40% lower than official Epidemic

It's NOT the only criteria present in reference document.

They also consider infectivity limits:
Ct>29 means NO INFECTIVE

As we can estimate Ct average, w total number of PCR+, we can calculate the number of 'cases' that were infective: according to gov't criteria!

The INFECTIVE Epidemic is not even half the Official.

All official cases were treated as DANGEROUS INFECTIVE.

They KNOW they weren't
Accumulated incidence in 14 days for Infective, hits 600 as max

Official was 1.000
Restrictions we're applied for that high number

We see clearly what we've told, the winter spike, specially so-called 2nd wave was GROSSLY EXAGGERATED thru testing policy catching old infections
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!