Skip to content

Trees

Trees

hr1 (1)

1. What counts is fatality rates which for Influenza is about 0.1% in the United States as the model and forecast for death rates for Coronavirus was projected in the millions and nearly 3o times the fatality rate as influenza. What does not need to be counted is counting positive tests, which is graphed as trying to keep the infection rate at a small percentage of the population until a real solution becomes available like a vaccine. Moreover, the notion that blood with antibodies treats disease is scientifically flawed. Vaccines and antibodies prevent disease; not treat disease.(Passive immunity means receiving another person's antibodies as opposed to manufacturing the antibodies by the person themselves either by being exposed to the Coronavirus or by given a vaccine when it becomes available). Here are I counterpoint to the many misguided and false premises: 1. The definition of infection and the word cases are often used interchangeably. Infection is a pathogen that needs to replicate to sufficient quantities to cause disease. (I would argue severe disease).  If you test for a pathogen and just determine presence of the pathogen or Coronavirus as either present or absent, you are not differentiating between colonization versus infection, which matters greatly. The goal has been inappropriately depicted as stopping the spread of a positive test. I could not disagree more.

2. The testing to date does not involve quantitative analysis although the technology for quantitative PCR analysis is available, but it is just not being utilized. Additionally, a single test or data point is not relevant but requires multiple data points that must reach sufficient quantities the (virulent dose) to cause disease. No quantitative analysis is being done, although it could be.

3. The epidemiological model was wrong, but what about the data? The spread of Coronavirus is being mischaracterized by measuring, whether a single test is positive or not. But is this right? What does the tests or data really say and better yet, how is the interpretation of the tests applied? The numbers may be way off and the mortality rate may really parallel influenza 0.1%, which changes everything.

4. The testing can entail drawing blood from a person and placing the specimen with dry ice to be sent to a reference lab or you can use a swab sampling mucus from nose or mouth and send that to the lab.If the nasopharyngeal (nose) or oropharyngeal (mouth) swab is done, is the validity of the test compromised, because of less than optimal processing of the sample or testing. If the nasopharyngeal swab tests needs to be processed within a few hours then sampling bias is introduced. Said another way, a nasopharyngeal swab could be positive initially, but the way the specimen is handled could mean a positive test becomes negative. (Why is this important; because it effects mortality rate calculations).

5. The coronavirus is an RNA virus, which means it has to be converted to double-stranded DNA to become amplified by PCR so that it can be properly identified. A few points worth mentioning here: it is not enough to just determine presence or absence of a pathogen (quantity and replication of virus matters) and second there are 7 types of Coronavirus ( 4 that circulate in humans) and since the GlobalCoronavirus began types A (China) , B (most common) and type C ( Singapore) are emerging.

6. The technique of PCR in processing nasopharyngeal swabs or blood samples matters as does knowing what probe is used to determine the presence or absence of Coronavirus as testing differences occur between countries.

7. As if that is not complicated enough, serology testing of the blood IgM antibodies can mean past or present exposure of Coronavirus (Covid 2) and IgG antibodies can mean past exposure of (Covid 1 or Covid 2) coupled with the fact that if you test the blood of asymptomatic persons and they test positive but have no disease; then the number of people exposed to the virus and generating antibodies is like getting a vaccine except the body makes the antibodies from being exposed to the pathogen as opposed to injecting a vaccine to make the antibodies. Either way, the antibodies are made by the persons immune system.

8. The antibody serology tests is important data especially on asymptomatic or mild symptoms because it is relevant to calculating the true risk to the population and specifically understanding mortality rates. Moreover, antibody serology tests highlight a few important and relevant points: likely the transmission of Coronavirus is based more on the virulence of the pathogen than what we are doing or not doing.

9. Additionally, spread of the Coronavirus is not as important as measuring severity of disease, which leads to the next point, which is how is death determined to be caused by Coronavirus. (Are we doing autopsies on patients and identifying Coronavirus in tissues like the lungs or are there people in nursing homes dying something else and the Coronavirus test is a confounding factor yet the death certificate cause of death says Coronavirus without definitive proof).

10. If you read between the lines (although I am open to more specificity of data) the Coronavirus could be summed up as ability to infect half the population of a country despite social distancing and the mortality rates in the United States may parallel the Influenza virus mostly in the old and frail (nursing home patients).

11. In effect, the mortality rates of Coronavirus were 20 to 25x exaggerated and the policies put in place will have unintended consequences that have not been measured or quantified yet, but warrants a reversal of the interventions that were wrong from the outset, not based on science and omits data to fit a theory that is incorrect. Said another way, the Coronavirus Pandemic is social engineering and income redistribution.

12. The conclusion that social distancing is working is more evidence of a fraudulent model, data and an attempt to rationalize the irrational; but more likely the Coronavirus, while causes death in high-risk populations, overall is mild and needs rethinking of goals, which is not trying to stop the spread of a less than perfect test. For emphasis, it is worth repeating the definition of infection, which is not being met: identification of a pathogen that increases in sufficient quantities to cause disease.

13. I can not resist making a few more points here: in a crisis when 9 people think a course of action is correct make the 10th person disagree with supporting arguments why the others are wrong.

14. Finally, I view the corona Task Force like I do a baseball pitcher. In previous games or on previous teams the individuals may have done some good things in the past, but in this game of the CoronavirusPandemic you (Coronavirus Task Force) just gave up 10 runs pitching. Time to bring in a relief pitcher.More to the point, for the benefit of the United States and the world will the Coronavirus Task Force please leave the White House and go home. (Except Vice President Pence can stay just give him something else to do).

Scroll To Top