There have been quite a few pandemic revelations not the least of which are all the self-professed "smartest folks in the room" asking the wrong questions and demanding the wrong answers. Unsurprisingly that is what they get, but perhaps these are just rhetorical questions because the real answer is, with teachers, "we're not going back to the classroom."
But let's suppose these folk really are smart and really want to make informed decisions.
Then we must start with the most popular CoVid stats: positivity rates and new cases. What do these really mean? THAT is the question these smart folk should be asking and then they should pull on that thread. Very hard. Let's pick one, the positivity rate most often stated in number per 100K population. The alarmists get livid when the rate is over 100 per 100K or approximately 0.1 percent with recent reports north of 500 per 100K. Even moderate curiosity begs certain questions most particularly how, over time does this splitting up of the population look? Well, over 12 cycles (cycles are usually 14 days) approximately 6% of the population has been diagnosed with CoVid. This leaves out those who have or have had previously diagnosed or undiagnosed CoVid. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that by 1 Mar 21 (taking into account rates late last year) at least 10% of the total population has or has had CoVid. That we know of. But that begs another question regarding how CoVid is diagnosed and whether someone is diagnosed upon a positive test result and if that same person is re-tested with the same result is that listed as one or two cases?
Ah, the tests...lots of questions there. It seems public school educations have equipped us with an eighth grade reading level and the amazing ability to comprehend yes/no results and little else. But the real questions are around the cycle threshold for PCR testing. What threshold defines "not infected?" Does this vary based on test manufacturer, equipment or reagents? And what is being reported, test results or patient results? In other words, what happens when an individual is routinely tested every two weeks? Do you stop testing them when they test negative after having tested positive? How is that reported and how does it change the overall statistics? What about the folks who aren't tested, are there any statistical models on that? If not why not? We do that for the census don't we?
But there is another test. The one that tests for antibodies generated when one's immune system is exposed to the virus or the mRNA vaccines. Why are those tests not part of the conversation? Why are these not a pre-requisite to getting a vaccine? After all, if you've had CoVid, even mild and undiagnosed, a vaccination would waste a precious resource.
Why aren't the folks running around screaming "blood on their hands" asking these and other penetrating questions? Why does anyone still think these folks are really all that smart?
Posts
