Someone in your video asked a question as to whether having a higher false positive rate would be better to contain the spread of the virus. The danger there is that the patient may be ill with something that is not caused by SARS COV2, but gets a false positive test. The patient is then treated for Covid (and not the real illness), which may lead to the worsening or death of the patient. (and which brings up the question of iatrogenic cause of death of SARS COV2 positive patients). I think we should aim for an accurate test rather than a test that will result in the most containment.
As a paying subscriber and reader, I have been going back to read your older stuff here on your substack.
This article was interesting and reminded me of this article: Americans Are Wildly Misinformed about the Risk of Hospitalization from COVID-19, Survey Shows. Here’s Why:
They used PCR because of the probability of false positives. The tests came from China, and are rather labor intensive to build. The Chinese were doing them by hand with virtually no automation. There is no way they could have supplied the number of tests that all of the US WEF led states bought without having a huge stockpile built ahead. They were cutting corners in the assembly process, eliminating a number of tests for the flow rate through multi-layered membranes, but still, no way. All this information had me thinking that the entire thing was an information operation, in March of 2020. I thought the thing they were testing for was a bioweapon in January of 2020, so this helped me with my thinking on the PCR. It is important to observe the entire picture, and to know the natural tendency of the actors. A complex model, but I believe it could have been solved with math in a few hours.
Someone in your video asked a question as to whether having a higher false positive rate would be better to contain the spread of the virus. The danger there is that the patient may be ill with something that is not caused by SARS COV2, but gets a false positive test. The patient is then treated for Covid (and not the real illness), which may lead to the worsening or death of the patient. (and which brings up the question of iatrogenic cause of death of SARS COV2 positive patients). I think we should aim for an accurate test rather than a test that will result in the most containment.
As a paying subscriber and reader, I have been going back to read your older stuff here on your substack.
This article was interesting and reminded me of this article: Americans Are Wildly Misinformed about the Risk of Hospitalization from COVID-19, Survey Shows. Here’s Why:
https://fee.org/articles/americans-are-wildly-misinformed-about-the-risk-of-hospitalization-from-covid-19-survey-shows-here-s-why/
It sounds like we are suffering from the "Huge Pinky Toe Epidemic" caused by the media fear pandering.
They used PCR because of the probability of false positives. The tests came from China, and are rather labor intensive to build. The Chinese were doing them by hand with virtually no automation. There is no way they could have supplied the number of tests that all of the US WEF led states bought without having a huge stockpile built ahead. They were cutting corners in the assembly process, eliminating a number of tests for the flow rate through multi-layered membranes, but still, no way. All this information had me thinking that the entire thing was an information operation, in March of 2020. I thought the thing they were testing for was a bioweapon in January of 2020, so this helped me with my thinking on the PCR. It is important to observe the entire picture, and to know the natural tendency of the actors. A complex model, but I believe it could have been solved with math in a few hours.
I would have said 5% LOL.
"Missed it by that much" - Maxwell Smart (holding finger & thumb 1/2 inch apart)