Enjoy my talk with Mathew Crawford whose statistical analysis of Covid-19 data has been instrumental to developing the case for early treatment and against the universal implementation of vaccines.
One addition to my thoughts about PCR: while it doesn't make a good diagnostic tool, used in a proper way, it *could* be used as a general surveillance tool, with full understanding of false positives and negatives. But public health authorities are certainly *not* doing that.
After talking earlier this week with Steven Pelech, I'm no longer sure that the false positive rate is as high as I was led to believe from one paper that had been shared with me.
It gets complicated due to the weird definition of "testing positive" which might be a "best two out of three" subsequence positives. This gets into the complexity of the quasi-species swarm in which CoVs tend to travel.
Thanks for the clarification Mathew!
One addition to my thoughts about PCR: while it doesn't make a good diagnostic tool, used in a proper way, it *could* be used as a general surveillance tool, with full understanding of false positives and negatives. But public health authorities are certainly *not* doing that.
After talking earlier this week with Steven Pelech, I'm no longer sure that the false positive rate is as high as I was led to believe from one paper that had been shared with me.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/rte-roundtable-talk-5-natural-immunity
It gets complicated due to the weird definition of "testing positive" which might be a "best two out of three" subsequence positives. This gets into the complexity of the quasi-species swarm in which CoVs tend to travel.