“Another sleazy federal bureaucrat”

That’s Anthony Fauci he is discussing. Also about this matter of “false positives”. Saw this as a comment here.

Bayesian conditional probability is being completely ignored. Let’s say a COVID-19 test is 90% accurate and 1 out of 100 people have COVID-19. You test positive for COVID-19, what’s the chance the test is correct? 100-1=99 people don’t have COVID-19 but 99×10%= ~10 will falsely test positive. The probability that you actually have COVID-19 is only 1/(1+10)= ~9%. ~90% of positive cases/deaths are FALSE!

Meanwhile there is so much money being made out of curing us that this is one disease that will never go away. False positives are all just part of the story.

This entry was posted in COVID-19. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to “Another sleazy federal bureaucrat”

1. mh says:

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
10h
Oh, I don’t know. I think they should publish it.

I love science fiction.

2. billie says:

sadly though, the stories pitched by the msm are becoming the “truth” (why would they lie?)

3. cuckoo says:

I can recommend The Drunkard’s Walk by Leonard Mlodinow, a very readable book on the development of statistics and probability. One of the many things he takes apart is this question of wrongly calculated false positives in medical testing, based on his own experience of testing positive for HIV (falsely, as it turned out).

4. Brett says:

I agree that this virus craziness will never end but what I don’t understand with the false positive numbers is, why do the other states with no Covid in the community have no positives from the thousands and thousands of tests that are done each day.

If the percentage of false positives was 0.1% then in Adelaide today (where I am located) there should have been 8 cases reported yesterday from the 8000 tests. There were 0. Has been 0 for a very long time.

I’m not medically trained or an expert in maths/statistics so I would love one of you cats to better explain it to me.

5. max says:

‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ Max Planck in 1950

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.

6. Shane says:

Cant help but notice there is a few under the radar media comments going around from Jim Stone & others like bitchute about Peter Spann dying last week 2 months after his AZ jab, but its not so much about him dying
https://www.latestnewssouthafrica.com/2021/05/31/australian-film-maker-peter-spann-has-passed-away/
but more about the deep-sixing of the last 4 months of his twitter account where he had started backtalking to anti vaxxers & the twitter updates that followed where he starts to chart the advent of seemingly unrelated symptoms after his AZ jab.
Admittedly going by photos, he definitely had a few co morbidities, but its starting to look like this world wide experimental trial of making one’s body produce spike proteins rather than the more usual approach of simple antibodies like the Russian SputnikV does, might have very serious consequences if you arent really super healthy & you aren’t necessarily yet aware of what’s wrong with you ….

7. MK says:

Conditional probabilities for screening tests would have been taught to Brett Sutton during his MPH.

It would be much better if any positive asymptomatic Tier II ‘contact’ was only considered a presumptive positive until the test has been repeated.

I would be very curious to know if testing has been repeated on all the other fleeting contact cases, at the moment its 25% false positive rate.

8. Mango Man says:

I suggest Mr Kates travels to India with some urgency to let them know about the false deaths. This is critical knowledge that they will assuredly lap up. As for Carlson, the man raised on TV dinners, there isn’t a scrap of cred left in that shiny, fake persona.

9. Rex Anger says:

Thanks for letting us know you don’t like him…

10. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ Max Planck in 1950

soylent green would accelerate this

11. Primer says:

Post modernist statists don’t like their water carriers being described as sleazy bureaucrats. Perfectly understandable, the truth burns.

12. Lee says:

Fauci should be hung, drawn and quartered.

13. Figures says:

If the percentage of false positives was 0.1% then in Adelaide today (where I am located) there should have been 8 cases reported yesterday from the 8000 tests. There were 0. Has been 0 for a very long time.

The answer comes from the fact that there is no such thing as a “positive” or “negative” result in virus testing (PCR). Indeed, there is no such thing as virus testing. PCR *is not a test*. It is a process used to duplicate DNA or fragments of DNA (or if the thing you want to duplicate is RNA, then it converts it to DNA before it duplicates it). There is no way to make PCR into a diagnostic tool (test) – and its inventor (the Nobel Prize winning Kary Mullis) knew that.

Imagine a car factory that can take any input from steel scraps to a full chassis and, eventually, turn it into a car. If you feed it a chassis then it won’t require as many steps to turn it into a car but it will still result in just as much of a car as the steel scraps do.

That’s what PCR is. You can have more or less steps but you *always* get a result of lots of DNA if you want to. There is no non-arbitrary rule for how many steps constitute a “positive” result vs a “negative” result and that “rule” changes from country to country, state to state, lab to lab. And, it even changes *within* labs dependent on the results to the other questions that those tested get asked (eg if they have been in contact with another “positive” or if they have particular symptoms).

We aren’t ever going to be told this but it is highly likely that most labs in Victoria are running much higher thresholds (ie they are running more cycles before they stop the PCR process). That means that they will always have more “positives”. It is also why they go several weeks without a case but then they quickly rise back up to several dozen in the space of a week – pathologists will run even more cycles when they believe that the person being tested has come into contact with another “positive” case.

Now, this doesn’t mean that PCR isn’t an amazing invention. It is. It’s just completely inappropriate to apply it to virology.

14. Professor Fred Lenin says:

It seems now you can get the chinese virus by brushing against someone?I suppose they have to keep the narrative going ,may I suggest next ,”you can get the virus from passing on the opposite side of the street fom infected ,persons , or from social media !!!
These people make Paul Keating look like ! a dirty rotten Truthist !!
They will be banned from entry to Hell as unitigated Liars

15. Mak Siccar says:

Fauci is a swamp dweller extraordinaire whose credibility and ‘reputation’ should be publicly shredded during his prosecution for crimes against humanity.

16. hzhousewife says:

It seems now you can get the chinese virus by brushing against someone

or by rolling around on the floor of a medi-hotel like a 2 yr old

17. Rod W says:

Today’s Tucker opening (US Thursday night) is even more incisive. Recommended viewing.

18. Lee says:

Tucker is spot-on, as usual.
If he is copping flak he must be over the target.

19. Bruce says:
20. m0nty says:

You test positive for COVID-19, what’s the chance the test is correct? 100-1=99 people don’t have COVID-19 but 99×10%= ~10 will falsely test positive. The probability that you actually have COVID-19 is only 1/(1+10)= ~9%. ~90% of positive cases/deaths are FALSE!

Yet another example of Steve Kates, a supposed professor of economics, endorsing mathematically illiterate junk.

21. Boambee John says:

Yet another example of Steve Kates, a supposed professor of economics, endorsing mathematically illiterate junk.

I think the correct expression would be “mathematically innumerate”.

Nevertheless, give us the correct calculation, or shut up, dry your tears and die like a man.

22. rickw says:

Fauci should be hung, drawn and quartered.

Sounds much to civilised.

23. rickw says:

I think the correct expression would be “mathematically innumerate”.

Don’t disturb munty while he’s mixing up disciplines!!

24. Tel says:

There is no non-arbitrary rule for how many steps constitute a “positive” result vs a “negative” result and that “rule” changes from country to country, state to state, lab to lab.

And it changed for political reasons when Trump went away.

If you search “WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 1” you find that the World Health Organization is perfectly aware of this, and has required that all tests also be accompanied with an indicator of how much amplification was required to ping the test … specifically this instruction (Ct is cycle threshold):

“Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting healthcare provider.”

Unfortunately, the testers are not doing it properly, and no one powerful is calling them out. Lots of minor publications have pointed the finger at this, but government health bureaucrats won’t budge. As a consequence, the information we have available to the public is exceptionally poor … for no good reason whatsoever.

25. Frank says:

m0nty says:
June 4, 2021 at 3:59 pm

I’ve heard the same spiel from the mouths of statistics professors.

26. Tel says:

I agree that this virus craziness will never end but what I don’t understand with the false positive numbers is, why do the other states with no Covid in the community have no positives from the thousands and thousands of tests that are done each day.

Brett, think about it this way: you have a test that is very sensitive and can detect tiger scat on the ground … this test can detect anything from a tiny smear, right up to wading knee deep in the stuff. The test can never in any circumstances detect an actual tiger … but you have a pretty good idea that tigers only move at a certain speed, and tiger scat does not walk around at all, so therefore you conclude that it’s a pretty good indicator that there are tigers about the place.

Thing is, there’s a really really big difference between detecting a crumb here and there which might mean tigers were here weeks ago but are now far away, as compared to stepping in a great fresh pile, and then another fresh pile. The test does in fact also give you a good indicator of how much it did detect, but the person using that test deliberately throws away this data and simply declares, YES / NO on the tiger question. It’s not a problem with the test, it’s the way it gets used.

27. Eyrie says:

Fauci should be hung, drawn and quartered.

Sounds much to civilised.

Impaled.

28. If positive, why cant a test declare which cycle it switched to positive? Or is that giving away state secrets?

29. Timothy Neilson says:

Bayesian conditional probability is being completely ignored. Let’s say a COVID-19 test is 90% accurate and 1 out of 100 people have COVID-19. You test positive for COVID-19, what’s the chance the test is correct? 100-1=99 people don’t have COVID-19 but 99×10%= ~10 will falsely test positive. The probability that you actually have COVID-19 is only 1/(1+10)= ~9%. ~90% of positive cases/deaths are FALSE!

Seems highly counterintuitive.

But consider:
(a) if 100 people get tested, and only 1 has COVID, approx 10 or 11 will still test positive, with 9 or 10 positives being false;
(b) so if you’re one of the 10 or 11 positives, then (even ignoring for the present that all the positive tests might be false and the real COVID sufferer a false negative) there’s only a 9 or 10% chance you have COVID;
(c ) so if “90% accurate” and “1 in 100 has it” are real stats, then the reasoning seems prima facie sound.

I don’t know enough about statistics to know whether the reasoning is valid.
But if it is, that would mean that m0nty had beclowned himself yet again, confirming his status as a fat idiot.

Hmm, what to think…

30. gavalanche says:

depopulation agenda
question is…
do you agree with it?

31. Boambee John says:

gavalanche says:
June 4, 2021 at 6:07 pm
depopulation agenda
question is…
do you agree with it?

Only if I get to decide who is to be depopulated. I’ve got a little list, they never would be missed …

32. Boambee John says:

That was sarcasm, for those lacking a sense of the absurd.

33. Tel says:

Monty is illiterate, innumerate, inconsiderate and irrelevant.

Conditional probability is a thing. I watched the video and worked it out myself at the point where he said “pause the video and try to work it out”. I didn’t look up the formula either … did it from first principles.

Hey Arky, those Kahn Academe probably have work from home jobs … don’t mention gold or anything like that in the interview.

34. Boambee John says:

Tel says:
June 4, 2021 at 6:39 pm
Monty is illiterate, innumerate, inconsiderate and irrelevant.

You flatter him.

35. Kneel says:

“Bayesian conditional probability is being completely ignored.”

You don’t need Bayesian stats to do this – classical stats is fine. I have previously posted on this here at the cat multiple times, where I showed that a 99% accurate test that shows positive could actually indicate only a 1% probability that you have the disease. In short, this is because you need to consider how many people we should expect to have the disease vs how many tests we are doing. A 99% accurate test will give 100 positive results when you do 10,000 tests, so if only 1 in 10,000 actually has it, it is wrong 99% of the time for those 10,000 tests!

In the current case of COVID, this is confounded because we do not know how many people we expect to have it, and are using the test to determine who actually has it. This is a very basic epidemiologic error to make, and it is easy to miss because even those with medical training are not normally well versed in epidemiology.

“I’m not medically trained or an expert in maths/statistics so I would love one of you cats to better explain it to me.”

Two reasons:
1) The technical term is “specificity” – how specific to the disease is the test?
Test A detects conditions W & X.
Test B detects conditions W & Y.
Test C detects conditions W & Z.
If all three are positive, you like have condition W.
Since the WHO PCR test was created without an actual sample of the virus, and then “tested” by seeing if known cases reported positive (they did), it is unclear what other similar virii may “trigger” the test. And since corona virii are “cold and flu” virii, and have similar symptoms to “mild” COVID, this could be some of the issue.

2) The PCR test finds a small amount of a specific protein, then “amplifies” it to a level large enough to be detected. In most cases, this amplification is considered “reasonable” if it doesn’t exceed about 32 billion times (35 doublings). It’s not entirely clear to me what number is being used in Australian tests, however I have heard up to 45 doublings, which is about 1,000 times more than 35, so about 32 trillion times. Furthermore, because the sample you supply is collected from the nasal cavity and/or throat, and is typically a collection of the mucus in those areas, this does not indicate actual infection, merely that you have been “exposed” to it. Even if present in the mucus, you may not be infected, and may not even be at any significant risk of being infected, especially at higher numbers of amplification – after all, the mucus linings in these areas are there to do just that, trap such pathogens before they can cause an infection.

36. Kneel says:

“…endorsing mathematically illiterate junk.”

Google is your friend – try looking first.
It is perfectly normal epidemiology and sound stats – as I have posted before, and as is available on youtube videos from epidemiologists pre-COVID.
If you are unable to follow the logic and math, you might be better suited to a lesbian interpretive dance degree than anything in the STEM fields, even at a trades level. Do you have “L” & “R” labels on your shoes – wouldn’t surprise me.

37. Indolent says:

That was sarcasm, for those lacking a sense of the absurd.

No, it was Gilbert and Sullivan and worth a very good laugh.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.