Adapnation – Dec 2020

How much more proof do we need as a country to say NO to these #casedemic inducing PCR community tests?

This weeks report from Cambridge Uni’s COVID-19 screening programme has been doing the rounds on social – but the report screenshot is hard to read, doesn’t tell the full story, and is a little hard to follow.

What’s funny is that this report is causing yet more raging arguments as sceptics are saying “see, 100% FP rate” and fans of restrictions and testing say “the FP rate is 0.3%, dummy!”.

Who is right?

Both are right, but only the sceptics are being honest regarding the ramifications that this screening programme is highlighting in plain sight…

MAKING SENSE OF IT:

So, in an attempt to help make sense of it all, here’s a more consumable summary of the screening programme that has been in operation for 2 months:

Click to enlarge

The service has been ramped up to 10K students tested weekly. For efficiency sakes, households pool their swabs into a single test tube. Tests are performed in the uni’s microbiology lab – vs the private low-quality lighthouse labs.

Students from PCR Testing Pools that come back positive are asked to perform an individual PCR Confirmation test.

Last week, 11 testing pools across Cambridge Uni-owned and private residence came back positive, representing 0.5% of total test pools.

There were NO STUDENTS, zero, that had a positive confirmation test. That’s approx 50 tests all with a negative result.

What this means is that 100% of the positive results were FALSE.

This is absolutely cause for concern, as we are not performing confirmatory public testing, meaning massive disruption as people need to isolate unnecessarily, and those individuals if hospitalised/die of other causes will be marked down as covid.

Now, this is not the False Positive Rate of the test. FPR is calculated by taking dividing the False Positives by the True Negatives. Cambridge Uni state this is currently 0.3%.

But, you are being duped if you take comfort in the 0.3%. Why? Because when you test lots of people without symptoms and prevalence is low, the majority of results will indeed be false.

Look at Cambridge’s “Asymptomatic” Prevalence. At most it was 1.5% mid Nov and is currently 0%. Why is it so difference to the community prevalence? Well, that’s what happens when you weed out the testing FP’s with confirmatory testing.

“Hang on a minute – maybe this was a fluke week!”. Fair enough, let’s look at prior weeks false results. It’s been averaging at 60%, with the week before last being 91%!

Moreover, the pattern we are seeing is broadly consistent with the observed seasonality of coronaviruses and other common respiratory viruses. We expect a drop off, followed by a second hump in Jan.

–

aka – nothing to see here, if we leveraged actual honest science. Science that we’ve known for a very long time – whether it be about seasonality, diagnosis, poor testing accuracy, masking, lockdowns etc.

Alas (to steal one of Bojo’s words), science is well and truly dead in 2020. It’s left the building, and what’s left is politicking and scaremongering propaganda masquerading as “science”.

KEY TAKEAWAY:

Stop getting tested!

Stop fuelling the #casedemic, the falsified hospitalisations, and the gross mis-certification of deaths.

_______

SOURCES:

• The Cambridge Uni COVID-19 Screening Programme
• AdapNation’s analysis on Common Respiratory Virus Seasonality

Source