This isn't exactly what I research, but PCR-based diagnostic tests are dependent on many factors. If 1) the primers are very specific, don't form dimers, and anneal with high affinity, 2) the reverse transcriptase is very high quality and the DNA polymerase (Taq) is also high quality with proofreading ability, 3) you have the right PCR mix (Mg concentration, etc.) and 4) the sample is very clean and pre-processed well, then you can get away with higher cycles. If not, then with higher cycles you wind up amplifying up non-specific junk in the sample. With lower cycle counts, you run the risk of missing low viral load samples. So, it's a complicated optimization procedure to develop a good assay. The connection between case counts and PCR conditions is complicated and there are many other factors involved besides cycle numbers. If I was trying to assess this, I'd use the published sensitivity and specificity numbers for the different diagnostic assays (and there are many ...numerous institutions in the US, for example, have developed their own PCR assays), and try to calculate case counts from that. The estimates of total cases is uncertain at this point and could very well be 2x the number of reported cases in developed nations.

The cycle settings were a clear arm of the plandemic angle to further scare people with tests and the known reality that most would induce MANY false positives. Most PCR cycles across all research are far closer to the 20-30 cycle range, for this very reason.

We regularly are in the 35+ cycle range for genotyping applications in human genetics.

The higher you go, obviously the higher false positive rate you will have. Given the fear brought on by that many false positives (again the IFR is low, but cases people, cases!), cycles in this kind of atmosphere MUST be addressed. You may not have controversies or costs at 35+ given your application, Steven. But they exist here in making the picture clear of what's going on and how dangerous it is.

Lemony, there are not significant cost issues or controversies going to 35 cycles for a large number of applications. If you have a messy sample that is not prepped well, then there can be issues. I can put you in touch with the top PCR experts, including the first person to do PCR, if you'd like further explanation.

I'm not sure that was a conspiracy theory. this was, from the onset, seen to be a contagious disease...

@James R - Don't make me get the video clip of Dr Fauci explaining how it wasn't a "big deal". You're either uniformed, or selectively remembering. The WHO tweeted that there wasn't any human transmission early on, its been archived and referred to as time has worn on. Seriously, no one remembers China downplaying this? Its bizarre, because they most certainly did, including not stopping any international flights at all.

Vid clip -- wait for the zinger at the end where Fauci says "This isn't a threat to the United States..." and so on -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqg2kQDlPKw And just for extras - here's our beloved Fauci saying masks aren't needed -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6pEcgDmEUk "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask" This is why people don't trust governments and their supposed "experts".

China was well-aware of human-human transmission very early on and those of us in the medical community were also aware of this. Not only was China aware of this probably well before October 2019, but they also knew the structure of the virus, information about the receptors, the sequence, that males, people with hypertension, smokers, elderly, etc. were at higher risk and had reasonably good estimates of mortality rates and Ro. Indeed, it was from the information from Chinese investigators, officials and medical professionals that I bought N95 masks in early January 2020. I do think it's fairly clear that China tried to downplay the impact of SARS2. That said, they also took many dramatic steps within China to curtail the spread which bought the rest of the world time to prepare ...time which wasn't used properly. Fauci made the statement about masks to save precious PPE for frontline healthcare workers. I personally don't agree with his approach, but reserving PPE for frontline workers was the right thing to do. Fauci is an excellent administrator, scientist and a hero in my book. I work directly with NIAID and can say he has an exceptional reputation in the medical science community, both long before COVID and now. In any case, Stebbing's statements are exceedingly valuable as they are evidence-based, honest, and based on data interpreted through his powerful lens of scientific expertise.

The information-value content of your comment is low.

Yes Timothy you make a couple of good points here. Fauci probably did the best he could, BUT his comment about masks being useless was a huge mistake. A commenter below mentions about saving the PPE for 1st line health workers being the reason, however, if that was the case, then Fauci should have come out and admitted that is why he said what he said. He has not, or if he did its not been widely reported. Once again this sort of behavior just boosts conspiracy theories. I bought N100 masks on Feb 1st and got loads of looks from my co-workers. I think the messaging about masks has been shocking. I believe masks clearly reduce transmission from the infected to the uninfected. I also believe the wearer, if the mask is worn correctly and is at least an N95, has REDUCED chances of catching the disease if the viral particle is associated with exhaled liquid droplets.

And still, the funniest part is, amidst all the lies and government policies killing more people by far than COVID ever did, the disease is nonlethal by any measure. Especially if you aren't old or a fatass.

Where did James go?

Bravo your comments, BTW this was such a biased one sided love fest. Jame's body language in support of every point made was a bit telling. There have been serious side effects from this Vax, but they were totally glossed over and blamed on statistical death rates.. really gentlemen?

Typically, effective scientific critiques are based on established evidence and well-reasoned arguments.

Sorry Bryce, you are out of line.

I'd like to see what his claims are and his reason for thinking the way he does. As he didn't do it, yes, worthless post. It could have been interesting, I guess.

James did a good job, I thought.

No. The long term side effects are known. Not taking the vaccine results in economic depression and millions of deaths. Good luck with the balance on your Fidelity 401(k) statement in an economic, and then financial, depression. Good luck landing in that lakeside house on Lake Geneva, WI, in those sunset years. For anyone in their 50s or above, I cannot imagine the concept of not wanting to receive the vaccinations because of unknowable long-term side effects.

Phillip, your responsible is beyond irresponsible and lacking all humility. Not taking the vaccine didn't cause any economic depression, policies have already caused economic depression and millions of deaths, as a matter of fact. In what world would long term side effects of an mRNA vaccine, a novel one never followed before long term (it's impossible to as it's never been employed), be known or even possibly known? Gates? Fauci? Is that you? I didn't know your real first name was Phillip.

Phillip B. appears to be a sociopath. It's important to note that 4% of the US are sociopaths.

I agree. I haven't studied the other vaccines more closely, such as the ones from Russia, China & Johnson&Johnsone ones, but for Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca the cases of symptomatic, as opposed to asymptomatic cases, is almost zero.

The best part about being healthy is not even worrying about covid. The worst part? Others trying to jab you with needles for no good reason.

Yes David. I suspect quite strongly, that "normal" will not be coming back anytime in the near to medium term future. The economic carnage is going to get worse.

Oh come on, just no need for the invective here.

As specified in the protocol, suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCR- confirmed were not recorded as adverse events unless they met regulatory criteria for seriousness. Two serious cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 were reported, both in the vaccine group, and narratives were reviewed. In one case, a 36-year-old male with no medical comorbidities experienced fever, malaise, nausea, headache and myalgias beginning on the day of Dose 2 and was hospitalized 3 days later for further evaluation of apparent infiltrates on chest radiograph and treatment of dehydration. A nasopharyngeal PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on the day of admission, and a chest CT was reported as normal. The participant was discharged from the hospital 2 days after admission. With chest imaging findings that are difficult to reconcile, it is possible that this event represented reactogenicity following the second vaccination, a COVID-19 case with false negative test that occurred less than 7 days after completion of the vaccination series, or an unrelated infectious process. In the other case, a 66-year-old male with no medical comorbidities experienced fever, myalgias, and shortness of breath beginning 28 days post-Dose 2 and was hospitalized one day later with abnormal chest CT showing a small left-sided consolidation. He was discharged from the hospital 2 days later, and multiple nasopharyngeal PCR tests collected over a 10-day period beginning 2 days after symptom onset were negative. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that this event represents a COVID-19 case with multiple false negative tests that occurred more than 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen, and more likely that it represents an unrelated infectious process. Among 3,410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.

HI Neil If you email me I will ask him those great questions and forward you the answer.

James, may I have your email. Thank you.

William, the addendum you have quoted from the report is in reference to possible adverse effects of the vaccine. My concern rather relates to the possibility of actual false negative COVID-19 cases not being included as part of the vaccine or placebo arms of the trial. If indeed these patients had COVID-19 and were excluded from the data because they were false negative, it would significantly reduce the reported effectiveness of the vaccine.

Hi Neil, As you point out, the reported efficacy is almost definitely falsely high given PCR tests have only 80% sensitivity, based on Johns Hopkins testing. But these Phase 3 trials are not powered or designed to diminish testing inaccuracy. The focus on real world, clinical outcomes, whereby only serious cases are examined for testing accuracy, is in my opinion the correct approach. These are emergency authorised vaccines that have a primary goal of reducing the clinical impact of the virus (hospitalisation and mortality) not to eradicate the virus altogether. In my opinion it is dangerous to emphasise to infection rate outcomes as it misses the entire purpose of medicines, in this case vaccine, and confuses public perception of medicines' efficacy. If a cure for cancer was discovered, whereby two injections led to ZERO serious cases of cancer, would the media and medical community nit-pick the rate of carcinogenic cells and cancer-like symptoms detected in a trial population? No, it would be viewed as an utter triumph of medicine, as these COVID-19 vaccines should be judged.

Hi William. You make a great point. I agree this should be all about reducing hospitalization and death. Perhaps the authorities recognize the fear surrounding COVID-19 and they are skewing data to publicize a high "efficacy" rate to give the public confidence in returning to normal life. To your point about reducing hospitalization/death rates, while it is likely the vaccine will be efficacious in this regard, the data thus far do not confirm that, as there has not been a long enough time nor large enough patient numbers to reach that conclusion. While I am straying a bit off topic, from not only a purist but also a practical medical point of view I would have wished that data during this pandemic be presented in a consistent manner. In my view the vaccine will undoubtedly lead us out of this mass. However I am saddened that the same liberal analysis of the vaccine data has not been applied to data surrounding prophylaxis, early and late therapeutics with Ivermectin, as I believe this treatment would serve as a useful bridge for patients before vaccination.

Good questions Neil. I am especially supported of the ivermectin comment. For some reason the authorities have ignored some good papers on this. This type of action only serves to increase conspiracy theories. I secured ivermectin myself for immediate use IF I should fall ill with this virus.

We actually had our best year last year and I’ve benefitted from this lockdown in that allows me to catch up w family and friends - so please be aware of your false assumptions and prejudices.

Sorry Peter the comment was not meant for you. Many thanks for the compliment.

< Takes off glasses, looks pensively off-camera > Reconcile these two statements: "The (virus) doesn't mutate much at all..." (Oh good, we're getting out of the woods here!) "These new variants in different countries are concerning..." (Ah, stoke the fear narrative, well done.) Which is it, boys? Oh, nevermind -- just seeing this contradiction is enough to tell me where the bias is. Good show, lads. Lets keep that fear going, can't let expansionist tendencies of local govts be hindered at all...

Good catch Timothy P.

Timothy P: For an RNA virus, the mutation rate for SARS2 is low. SARS2 also doesn't undergo reassortment like influenza does. The fact that new variants pop up (and thousands of new mutations have occurred for SARS2) doesn't mean that the mutation rate is very high (it could have been a much larger number of mutations) nor does it indicate that new variants aren't concerning. Those two statements are not in contradiction.

Hold on...will let you know in May ;)

Justin Stebbing's comments were indeed brilliant. The most knowledgeable, thoughtful and credible observations that I have experienced regarding Covid-19. However, while the interviewee was fantastic, the interviewer was not. Rather than guiding the interview, James Rasteh spent way too much time with his monologues trying to show us and the interviewee how smart HE was, often talking over the interviewee. While the interviewee's comments were clearly data based, Rasteh's clearly expressed his biases in his monologues.

I can -- lets not forget that the world is in this position because WHO initially said "No human-to-human transmission" then flip-flopped later. Not to mention Doctor Li, who tried to signal the alarm but was interrogated and later died. China doesn't care about their citizens. For those who don't know -- look up topics such as "Forced Relocation", "Interment Camps", "Human Rights Abuses" and such. Its plainly evident. And for those who can't bother -- look at Hong Kong, the CCP brutally put down a democratic protest and arrested all the leaders. They have no interest in honoring their "Two systems, One country" pledge - in fact, they already violated it. But again, we get a lot of China apologists on this platform, because frankly they're just interested in hitching their profit-wagons to the CCP train, no matter what the moral hazard is.

We actually had our best year last year and I’ve benefitted from this lockdown in that allows me to catch up w family and friends - so please be aware of your false assumptions and prejudices.

Thanks DL. Helpful to know that the compliments don’t translate. Justin is a very, very gifted human being - but i will try just to refer to people’s accomplishments going forward. It helps put the value of their commentary into perspective.