OK, I refer you to another excellent post by John Dee entitled False Positive Refresher. In it he talks about the PCR test’s sensitivity (which is the nominal percentage of true cases it spots). A sensitivity of 80% means that if you test 100 sick people, it will miss 20 of them. More importantly, in this context, is the specificity (which is the nominal percentage of genuine negatives it spots). So a specificity of 99% means that if you do the test in 100 well people, it labels one as sick, ie as a false positive.

This is an update of things I wrote last summer to remind folks of how a high rate of false positive COVID tests falsifies all the statistics, and not just the case numbers. It’s relevant because SAGE and others are making dire forecasts about the dire effects of repealing our now sketchily-observed restrictions.

The ongoing public manipulation over COVID-19->∞ goes on unabated. Depending what news article you happen to click on, you can find a different minister or SAGE member assuring us that all restrictions will go on the delayed Freedom Day in a fortnight’s time, or else that “freedom” will mean more or less the same as now only without the Furlough Scheme. And all points in between. Reports of lucrative new Test and Trace contracts for 2022 rather contradict the “free at last” narrative, as does today’s BMA announcement that:

“…keeping some protective measures in place is ‘crucial’ to stop spiralling case numbers having a ‘devastating impact’ on people’s health.”

Here’s an interesting graph, which is discussed in this article.

The Hart Group briefing paper on asymptomatic spread of COVID, by pathologist Dr John Lee, shows how the whole edifice of COVID restrictions is predicated on asymptomatic spread, yet how the scientific foundation for its very existence is shaky, or frankly spurious. But there is one potential fly in the ointment.