I think the nail has truly been hit on the caput! As I gnash my teeth while my entirely asymptomatic colleague sits at home thru the pointless testing done over the w/e just in case.....
I and others have observed for the entire span of the covid era that it was a test-demic. We openly called it this. But all was from very general observations, not hard math like you have done. Thanks for the excellent work.
As for your theory about the PCR test, I have maintained a similar theory since about Sept 2020. There are 2 major problems with the PCR test, both of which tend to cause your theory to become more likely. The 2 are:
1. PCR tests will find anything if you ramp up cycles past a certain threshold. This was regularly done, with many labs using 40 cycles or more, though it was known to be inaccurate past about 20 to 25 cycles.
2. PCR tests originally looked for a match of only 3 fragments of the published SARS-cov2 genome. When variants came around they dropped down to matching only 2 fragments. As there are only 3 ways to match 2 out of 3 fragments, the 4th variant (omicron) was identified by a match of only 1 fragment, and that one match was not allowed to be the S-gene. This told me that while it was possible that an omicron variant existed it was most likely that the PCR test would now be finding things that were not even a coronavirus.
Finally, of great interest to your theory that the PCR tests were picking up some endemic virus is that 1 of the 3 fragments is a perfect match of a fragment found in pantoea: Your theory exactly.
I offer the following links and quotes as proof:
"There is a perfect match of one of the N primers to a clinical pathogen (Pantoea)...."
"Pantoea species have been isolated from feculent material, in soil, water, plant (as epiphytes or endophytes), seeds, fruits (e.g., pineapple, mandarin oranges), and the human and animal gastrointestinal tracts, in dairy products, in blood and in urine."
UK labs: "There is higher risk of encountering false positives when testing for single genes alone, because of the possibility of cross-reactivity with other HCOVs and prevalent nasopharyngeal bacteria or reagent contamination."
"As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious."
"A new variant of the coronavirus (COVID-19) was identified in the UK in mid-November 2020. The UK variant of COVID-19 has changes in one of the three genes which coronavirus swab tests detect, known as the S-gene. This means in cases compatible with the UK variant, the S-gene is no longer detected by the current test. When there is a high viral load (for example, when a person is most infectious) absence of the S-gene in combination with the presence of the other two genes (ORF1ab and N genes) is a reliable indicator of the UK variant in COVID-19."
Most tests generally target a large number of genes. Currently, the tests in India test E, N and Rd Rp genes and if one of these genes is identified as positive, the test result would be positive. "
My goodness this is stunning information - hearty thanks! I'm revising my statistical methodology slightly to stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny and this will get typed out in due course. No matter how I push the numbers and refine methods a testdemic is now an unavoidable conclusion.
Coming up... Pandemic Au Naturel whereby I go full geek and tackle serial autocorrelation within multiple regression in order to squeeze out a more robust model from my nozzle. Not for the faint-hearted.
I think the nail has truly been hit on the caput! As I gnash my teeth while my entirely asymptomatic colleague sits at home thru the pointless testing done over the w/e just in case.....
Ooh, I'm liking the taste of this pie. Another slice, please!
LOL - I'm baking as fast as my floured hands will allow me! Lots more to come...
I and others have observed for the entire span of the covid era that it was a test-demic. We openly called it this. But all was from very general observations, not hard math like you have done. Thanks for the excellent work.
As for your theory about the PCR test, I have maintained a similar theory since about Sept 2020. There are 2 major problems with the PCR test, both of which tend to cause your theory to become more likely. The 2 are:
1. PCR tests will find anything if you ramp up cycles past a certain threshold. This was regularly done, with many labs using 40 cycles or more, though it was known to be inaccurate past about 20 to 25 cycles.
2. PCR tests originally looked for a match of only 3 fragments of the published SARS-cov2 genome. When variants came around they dropped down to matching only 2 fragments. As there are only 3 ways to match 2 out of 3 fragments, the 4th variant (omicron) was identified by a match of only 1 fragment, and that one match was not allowed to be the S-gene. This told me that while it was possible that an omicron variant existed it was most likely that the PCR test would now be finding things that were not even a coronavirus.
Finally, of great interest to your theory that the PCR tests were picking up some endemic virus is that 1 of the 3 fragments is a perfect match of a fragment found in pantoea: Your theory exactly.
I offer the following links and quotes as proof:
"There is a perfect match of one of the N primers to a clinical pathogen (Pantoea)...."
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
"Pantoea species have been isolated from feculent material, in soil, water, plant (as epiphytes or endophytes), seeds, fruits (e.g., pineapple, mandarin oranges), and the human and animal gastrointestinal tracts, in dairy products, in blood and in urine."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/pantoea
UK labs: "There is higher risk of encountering false positives when testing for single genes alone, because of the possibility of cross-reactivity with other HCOVs and prevalent nasopharyngeal bacteria or reagent contamination."
https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/uk-lighthouse-laboratories-testing-for.html?m=1
"As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious."
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851
"The S-gene encodes a surface protein, the spike protein, which is a homotrimeric glycoprotein complex essential for infectivity."
https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/why-s-gene-sequencing-is-key-for-sars-cov-2-surveillance/
"A new variant of the coronavirus (COVID-19) was identified in the UK in mid-November 2020. The UK variant of COVID-19 has changes in one of the three genes which coronavirus swab tests detect, known as the S-gene. This means in cases compatible with the UK variant, the S-gene is no longer detected by the current test. When there is a high viral load (for example, when a person is most infectious) absence of the S-gene in combination with the presence of the other two genes (ORF1ab and N genes) is a reliable indicator of the UK variant in COVID-19."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/19march2021#percentage-of-those-testing-positive-compatible-with-the-uk-variant
Most tests generally target a large number of genes. Currently, the tests in India test E, N and Rd Rp genes and if one of these genes is identified as positive, the test result would be positive. "
https://m.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/what-is-sgene-how-will-it-confirm-the-presence-of-omicron-covid19-variant-1638425372-1
My goodness this is stunning information - hearty thanks! I'm revising my statistical methodology slightly to stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny and this will get typed out in due course. No matter how I push the numbers and refine methods a testdemic is now an unavoidable conclusion.
It would be ideal if you could get your article published in the BMJ or the like.
Coming up... Pandemic Au Naturel whereby I go full geek and tackle serial autocorrelation within multiple regression in order to squeeze out a more robust model from my nozzle. Not for the faint-hearted.