Testing,Testing...aw fuck it

Yeah, so this is crap. I mean part of this isn't but most is.

From the New England Journal of Medicine -

"Moreover, the well-described long tail of RNA positivity after the transmissible stage means that many, if not most, people whose infections are detected during routine surveillance using high-analytic-sensitivity but low-frequency tests are no longer infectious at the time of detection (see diagram).2 Indeed, a recent investigation. opens in new tab by the New York Times found that in Massachusetts and New York, more than 50% of infections identified by PCR-based surveillance had PCR cycle threshold values in the mid-to-upper 30s, indicating low viral RNA counts. Although such low counts could imply either an early- or a late-stage infection, the long duration of the RNA-positive tail suggests that most infected people are being identified after the infectious period has passed. Crucially for the economy, it also means that thousands of people are being sent to 10-day quarantines after positive RNA tests despite having already passed the transmissible stage of infection."

Part of the shunning of science may actually lead to more tolerance and a more sane approach to Covid.

I have been getting a lot of calls about the meaning of a positive RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test. And they ask, "when is someone RT-PCR but no longer infectious?"

Truth - We have no idea.

We do know that infectivity decreases the further out a person is from symptoms. But we don't have a test to determine when a person, still RT-PCR+, is no longer infectious or contagious. Sorry.

The positive side of ignoring science is that many believe they KNOW how to interpret the RT-PCR tests and how to tell if a person is infectious or no longer infectious.

The SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is less sensitive that the RT-PCR assay, a lot less. But the data do not exist to support using the antigen test as the determinant of infectivity.

To back up a bit, John Mellors, M.D. coined the term "viral load", a bloody stupid term, John used to call the concentration of HIV in a person's blood. John, in a seismic publication, showed the HIV viral load was strongly associated with rate of disease. The higher the HIV viral load, the quicker a person got AIDS.

That vernacular has now be adopted with other viral infections. With Covid, the problem is we don't measure the virus in blood, we swab mucosal surfaces. Mucus is produced differently in different areas of the respiratory tract. We have simultaneously tested pts nose, throats and tracheal secretions and one sample tested positive, while the others, negative. Of course, when we swab you, we don't know how much mucus we swab, so we have no idea how much mucus we sampled. In other words, we cannot calculate a concentration of viruses per ml of mucus, since we don't know how much mucus we sampled.

So, don't bother learning Ct's, Cycle Thresholds. I used to do my own Q-PCR assays, when doing HIV research. I know a lot about Ct's. My advice to y'all is to ignore the nonsense.

On the positive side, the recognition that an asymptomatic, RT-PCR+ person may not or probably is not infectious is a GOOD thing. So, although it pains me to say this, I am for this bastardization of science, because this quarantine nonsense isn't helping anyone.

BTW, all those recent positives, I am aware of, were mask-wearers. I know, I know, that proves nothing. But those data are as good as data supporting the persistent use of this nonsense.

If you want to avoid Covid, take HCQ. If you want to wear a mask, go to a ball.

Where have gone Walter Cronkite? Our nation turns its scared eyes to you.