PCR cycle count...

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 8:26:23 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:05:44 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/12/2020 04:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Interestingly, the huge second spikes in europe are mostly over. They
were very short and not nearly as deadly as the first one.

That is because this time they locked down a bit faster and didn\'t throw
Covid infected bodies into care homes like they did in the first wave.

That\'s the masks, masks, masks argument. Do you think that some
biology might be involved too?

What \'biology\' would that be? Come up with a testable hypothesis, or explain
the concern. Adult human biology doesn\'t change from month to month, unless you\'re
pregnant, and the virus doesn\'t have any such lifespan, let alone cycle period.
The \"spikes\" are episodes where the local precautions must be readjusted, but
don\'t have any interesting correlation with the little genome changes we see.

Again, everything about this pandemic is blamed on social behavior,
whether it makes sense or not. Your examples don\'t make sense.

No, the course of the disease in an individual is NOT blamed on social behavior,
only the transmission (and thus, the number of infected individuals).
We\'re mainly getting the disease from each other, in crowded regions, which
is intrinsically a social connection that we can, and should, control.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 3:26:23 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:05:44 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/12/2020 04:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Interestingly, the huge second spikes in europe are mostly over. They
were very short and not nearly as deadly as the first one.

That is because this time they locked down a bit faster and didn\'t throw
Covid infected bodies into care homes like they did in the first wave.

That\'s the masks, masks, masks argument. Do you think that some
biology might be involved too?

It can\'t be ruled out, but there\'s no evidence that suggests that there is.

Keeping it out of care homes is the main reason why the UK death toll is
so much lower this time. The very rapid spread through the university
student population on some campuses also created a large number of cases
in teenagers and twenty somethings with a very low case fatality rate.

UK has just begun vaccinating the elderly with the Pfizer vaccine today.
Starting from the most elderly 80+ and working down the age range.

USA is very curious infection rate curve. Unique amongst the northern
hemisphere in that there was a peak in mid summer unlike anywhere else.

The USA is a collection of 50 very different states. It covers 3.8
million square miles. Its infection statistics are the superposition
of a lot of different regional curves.

And none of the US regions now being infected seem to have learned much from the experience of the US regions that got infected earlier, let alone places in the rest of the world, some of which have done much better.

South Africa (in their winter) has a similar July infection bump.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&country=GBR~USA~ZAF&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

In the USA I expect it was caused by July 4th celebrations.

The second case bump began about June 12. Nobody celebrates the 4th of
July in June. Cases had nearly peaked by the 4th. Celebrating the 4th
consists of going outdoors in the fresh air for an hour or so to watch
the fireworks, and, if you don\'t have kids to tuck away or a job to
show up for, maybe having a drink afterwards.

Much like the present steep rise was powered by Thanksgiving travel.

That one started swinging up around October 1. Nobody flies to Mom\'s
turkey dinner in October. Thanksgiving was November 26, near the
flattening top of the current peak.

Do they have wild Thanksgiving celebrations in Belguim and France and
the UK?


Again, everything about this pandemic is blamed on social behavior,
whether it makes sense or not. Your examples don\'t make sense.

Neither does US social behavior. Martin Brown\'s hypotheses about the particular social behaviors causing the US bumps have been easy for you to falsify. People travelling for other reasons remains a likely cause.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 3:26:23 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:05:44 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/12/2020 04:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Interestingly, the huge second spikes in europe are mostly over. They
were very short and not nearly as deadly as the first one.

That is because this time they locked down a bit faster and didn\'t throw
Covid infected bodies into care homes like they did in the first wave.

That\'s the masks, masks, masks argument. Do you think that some
biology might be involved too?

It can\'t be ruled out, but there\'s no evidence that suggests that there is.

Keeping it out of care homes is the main reason why the UK death toll is
so much lower this time. The very rapid spread through the university
student population on some campuses also created a large number of cases
in teenagers and twenty somethings with a very low case fatality rate.

UK has just begun vaccinating the elderly with the Pfizer vaccine today.
Starting from the most elderly 80+ and working down the age range.

USA is very curious infection rate curve. Unique amongst the northern
hemisphere in that there was a peak in mid summer unlike anywhere else.

The USA is a collection of 50 very different states. It covers 3.8
million square miles. Its infection statistics are the superposition
of a lot of different regional curves.

And none of the US regions now being infected seem to have learned much from the experience of the US regions that got infected earlier, let alone places in the rest of the world, some of which have done much better.

South Africa (in their winter) has a similar July infection bump.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&country=GBR~USA~ZAF&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

In the USA I expect it was caused by July 4th celebrations.

The second case bump began about June 12. Nobody celebrates the 4th of
July in June. Cases had nearly peaked by the 4th. Celebrating the 4th
consists of going outdoors in the fresh air for an hour or so to watch
the fireworks, and, if you don\'t have kids to tuck away or a job to
show up for, maybe having a drink afterwards.

Much like the present steep rise was powered by Thanksgiving travel.

That one started swinging up around October 1. Nobody flies to Mom\'s
turkey dinner in October. Thanksgiving was November 26, near the
flattening top of the current peak.

Do they have wild Thanksgiving celebrations in Belguim and France and
the UK?


Again, everything about this pandemic is blamed on social behavior,
whether it makes sense or not. Your examples don\'t make sense.

Neither does US social behavior. Martin Brown\'s hypotheses about the particular social behaviors causing the US bumps have been easy for you to falsify. People travelling for other reasons remains a likely cause.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 8:04:15 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:40:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 12/6/2020 11:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 12/6/2020 6:32 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

If a person is infectuous for 10 days, and 7.5% of the population is
infected at any time, in 130 days everyone will have had it. So it
follows that everyone has had it by now.

It does NOT follow, not from those numbers alone. There has to be
transmission from one person
to another, for which you cite no estimate whatever.

There also is no evidence that 7.5% of the population is (or was at
some past time) infected or infectuous;
the 7.5% number being passed around is for tested hospital walk-ins,
not for \'the population\'.

And, as such, is a completely bogus number on which to base your
assumptions for the population as a whole.

It\'s like looking at SELF REPORTED reviews of a restaurant and, because
\"every one\" is glowing, assuming that every DINER had a wonderful
experience
AND THAT YOU WILL, TOO!

If you want to know the prevalance of <whatever> in a population, you have to randomly sample. And, NOT having a bias in your sampling is often harder than you can imagine!

You want to know how often folks donate blood? Well, just add a
question to the questionnaire that you provide to BLOOD DONORS at your collection site.
Of course, the folks who NEVER give blood won\'t be represented in that sample. And, the folks who give blood FREQUENTLY will be over-represented (potentially even questioned MULTIPLE times!).

A good way to ballpark the C-19 prevalence in a population (for areas
that have centralized sewage treatment) is waste-water sampling.

That\'s something else they have to keep at -30oC until it can be analyzed.

Doesn\'t seem to be. They may deep-freeze the daily sample, but sewage systems do have a finite transit time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 8:04:15 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 1:40:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 12/6/2020 11:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 12/6/2020 6:32 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

If a person is infectuous for 10 days, and 7.5% of the population is
infected at any time, in 130 days everyone will have had it. So it
follows that everyone has had it by now.

It does NOT follow, not from those numbers alone. There has to be
transmission from one person
to another, for which you cite no estimate whatever.

There also is no evidence that 7.5% of the population is (or was at
some past time) infected or infectuous;
the 7.5% number being passed around is for tested hospital walk-ins,
not for \'the population\'.

And, as such, is a completely bogus number on which to base your
assumptions for the population as a whole.

It\'s like looking at SELF REPORTED reviews of a restaurant and, because
\"every one\" is glowing, assuming that every DINER had a wonderful
experience
AND THAT YOU WILL, TOO!

If you want to know the prevalance of <whatever> in a population, you have to randomly sample. And, NOT having a bias in your sampling is often harder than you can imagine!

You want to know how often folks donate blood? Well, just add a
question to the questionnaire that you provide to BLOOD DONORS at your collection site.
Of course, the folks who NEVER give blood won\'t be represented in that sample. And, the folks who give blood FREQUENTLY will be over-represented (potentially even questioned MULTIPLE times!).

A good way to ballpark the C-19 prevalence in a population (for areas
that have centralized sewage treatment) is waste-water sampling.

That\'s something else they have to keep at -30oC until it can be analyzed.

Doesn\'t seem to be. They may deep-freeze the daily sample, but sewage systems do have a finite transit time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.
My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

Moderna\'s mRNA seems to be less demanding in storage requirements. I have mailed-ordered frozen steaks with dry ice, vaccine can\'t be any more difficult.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.
My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

Moderna\'s mRNA seems to be less demanding in storage requirements. I have mailed-ordered frozen steaks with dry ice, vaccine can\'t be any more difficult.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:57:01 AM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.
My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

Moderna\'s mRNA seems to be less demanding in storage requirements. I have mailed-ordered frozen steaks with dry ice, vaccine can\'t be any more difficult.

Less thermodynamically stable means that the vaccine won\'t stay around too long and accidentally go hot. There is a joke around that Sars-cov2 is a failed Sars-cov vaccine that was accidentally released.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:57:01 AM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.
My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

Moderna\'s mRNA seems to be less demanding in storage requirements. I have mailed-ordered frozen steaks with dry ice, vaccine can\'t be any more difficult.

Less thermodynamically stable means that the vaccine won\'t stay around too long and accidentally go hot. There is a joke around that Sars-cov2 is a failed Sars-cov vaccine that was accidentally released.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/6/20 1:50 PM, Ed Lee wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:57:01 AM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.
My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

Moderna\'s mRNA seems to be less demanding in storage requirements. I have mailed-ordered frozen steaks with dry ice, vaccine can\'t be any more difficult.

Less thermodynamically stable means that the vaccine won\'t stay around too long and accidentally go hot. There is a joke around that Sars-cov2 is a failed Sars-cov vaccine that was accidentally released.

The Pfizer stuff is not made from virus, so that\'s most unlikely. It\'s
a mRNA vaccine.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/6/20 1:50 PM, Ed Lee wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:57:01 AM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:29:07 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.
My friends back in the UK inform me that there is some scepticism on
the part of the great British public as to the keeping qualities of
the fragile Pfizer vaccine. It\'s thermodynamically highly unstable and
people are concerned the chain of transport to get it to them may not
be up to the job. So take-up may be less than the authorities would
like. A *lot* of people are saying they\'ll skip this one and wait til
the Oxford/Astrazenica one becomes approved. The drawback with the
Ox/As vaccine was the fact that it required two shots 3 weeks apart,
but now it turns out the Pfizer one also needs 2 phased shots, so it\'s
lost a lot of its percieved advantage on that ground alone.

Moderna\'s mRNA seems to be less demanding in storage requirements. I have mailed-ordered frozen steaks with dry ice, vaccine can\'t be any more difficult.

Less thermodynamically stable means that the vaccine won\'t stay around too long and accidentally go hot. There is a joke around that Sars-cov2 is a failed Sars-cov vaccine that was accidentally released.

The Pfizer stuff is not made from virus, so that\'s most unlikely. It\'s
a mRNA vaccine.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 11:29:20 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

There is no data with which to correlate Ct with active disease or infectiousness. That\'s why they call it exposure. The PFA of a PCR is 0.00000...
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/11/pcr-test-result

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[server]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:59:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 11:29:20 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

There is no data with which to correlate Ct with active disease or infectiousness. That\'s why they call it exposure. The PFA of a PCR is 0.00000...
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/11/pcr-test-result

What nonsense. Erring on the side of caution indeed! Why not be really
cautious (and save test costs) and call every test positive? Isolate
everyone forever!

I have heard of some testing companies using N=45.

Something must explain why deaths-per-case have dropped so radically
in the second spikes, roughly a 17:1 ratio drop in Belguim. Mutation?
Culling? Better treatment? Or just testing changes?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 11:29:20 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

There is no data with which to correlate Ct with active disease or infectiousness. That\'s why they call it exposure. The PFA of a PCR is 0.00000...
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/11/pcr-test-result

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[server]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 12:51:52 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 2:38:35 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:59:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 11:29:20 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

There is no data with which to correlate Ct with active disease or infectiousness. That\'s why they call it exposure. The PFA of a PCR is 0.00000...
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/11/pcr-test-result


What nonsense. Erring on the side of caution indeed! Why not be really
cautious (and save test costs) and call every test positive? Isolate
everyone forever!

I\'m pretty sure those tests are cheap, they don\'t cost that much. Not sure about California, but around my neck of the woods, the daily infectivity rate comes in at 7.5% on a bad day.

If a person is infectuous for 10 days, and 7.5% of the population is
infected at any time, in 130 days everyone will have had it. So it
follows that everyone has had it by now.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[server]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 12:51:52 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 2:38:35 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:59:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 11:29:20 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data

(and other sources)

2^N is a powerful function for large N. It will be embarrassing if
only 10% of the positive tests demonstrate active infections or
infectiousness.

There is no data with which to correlate Ct with active disease or infectiousness. That\'s why they call it exposure. The PFA of a PCR is 0.00000...
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/11/pcr-test-result


What nonsense. Erring on the side of caution indeed! Why not be really
cautious (and save test costs) and call every test positive? Isolate
everyone forever!

I\'m pretty sure those tests are cheap, they don\'t cost that much. Not sure about California, but around my neck of the woods, the daily infectivity rate comes in at 7.5% on a bad day.

If a person is infectuous for 10 days, and 7.5% of the population is
infected at any time, in 130 days everyone will have had it. So it
follows that everyone has had it by now.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

If a person is infectuous for 10 days, and 7.5% of the population is
infected at any time, in 130 days everyone will have had it. So it
follows that everyone has had it by now.

It does NOT follow, not from those numbers alone. There has to be transmission from one person
to another, for which you cite no estimate whatever.

There also is no evidence that 7.5% of the population is (or was at some past time) infected or infectuous;
the 7.5% number being passed around is for tested hospital walk-ins, not for \'the population\'.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

If a person is infectuous for 10 days, and 7.5% of the population is
infected at any time, in 130 days everyone will have had it. So it
follows that everyone has had it by now.

It does NOT follow, not from those numbers alone. There has to be transmission from one person
to another, for which you cite no estimate whatever.

There also is no evidence that 7.5% of the population is (or was at some past time) infected or infectuous;
the 7.5% number being passed around is for tested hospital walk-ins, not for \'the population\'.