If the mayor and the Health Authority won’t explain what’s going on, I figured I go straight to the horse’s mouth and ask the state “experts”.***
First I asked what constituted an “active case”. Here is the response:
We define active cases as “an estimate of the number of people with confirmed COVID-19 cases who may still be sick. The estimate is calculated by taking the number of active cases and subtracting fatalities and estimated recoveries. Because both active and recovered cases are estimates, they can vary from what is reported locally.”
Boy. An awful lot of “estimates” in there!
They do have some sweet charts and graphs and stuff, I will admit. The link is HERE. Feel free to go and play around with all the buttons.
Furthermore:
A confirmed case is defined as a case that is laboratory confirmed (detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test such as a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test).
Great. So they DO use the PCR test using molecular amplification. The next obvious question is how many times (cycles) do they amplify the genetic material and what is the cutoff for being considered “active”?
From everything I have read, a Ct (cycle threshold) of 33 is as high as you have to go when it comes to a person being infectious. If you have to amplify the sample MORE than 33 times, that means you are starting with such a low viral load, the patient is NOT actively infectious.
Find a link to this HERE. But below is a snippet of what the researchers say:
The study found a significant relationship between Ct value and culture positivity rate.
- Samples with Ct values of 13–17 all led to a positive culture.
- Culture positivity rate then decreased progressively according to Ct values to reach 12% at 33 Ct.
- No culture was obtained from samples with Ct > 34.
- The five additional isolates obtained after blind subcultures had Ct between 27 and 34 (low viable virus load).
Thus the study found a strong correlation between Ct value and sample infectivity in a cell culture model. The authors could deduce that with this system, patients with Ct values equal or above 34 do not excrete infectious viral particles.
OK. So we would HOPE that the state of Texas would use a Ct cutoff of 33 or 34 to consider a person “active” and infectious. Do they? I asked and got this response:
Table 2 of the linked document below is taken directly from the manufacturer’s instructions for use which indicates that a Ct value equal to or less than 42 for a patient sample is interpreted as containing SARS-CoV-2 RNA and would be indicative a recent infection. The manufacturer, Perkin Elmer, has determined the performance characteristics for this PCR assay. Our state laboratory in Austin is using this assay for testing samples from individuals suspected of having a SARS-CoV-2 infection, as determined by their healthcare provider.
Holy hell! All the way up to 42 amplifications are considered fair game! Wow. Kind of makes me wonder how many of our “current active cases” are REALLY only a super low and non-infectious viral load that has been amplified a ridiculous number of times.
Makes me also wonder if, in the future, cases start to dramatically drop they might bump that up to 44. Or higher. Anything to keep the scare going, right?
PLEASE forward this post to anyone you know who has been sucked into the Branch Covidian cult. You cannot argue with the math.
**** I use the term “experts” facetiously. I happen to come from a family of surgeons. You know – REAL doctors. Uncles, cousins, my father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather – ALL highly successful surgeons. I also happen to have several college buddies who are very successful surgeons for over 20 years now. You know what they ALL tell me about this Covid bullshit? Every single one of them? “This is all a complete overreaction to a flu-like illness. Forcing everyone to wear masks is useless. And anyone who works for the government as a “health expert” is the guy who finished in the bottom of his class in med school”
Bam. Roasted.