Re: Q drop #4114:

"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30251-8/fulltext

When the protein sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding site was analyzed, an interesting result was found. While SARS-CoV-2 is overall more similar to bat coronaviruses, the receptor binding site was more similar to SARS-CoV.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30262-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420302622%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV use the same host cell receptor. It also found that, for both viruses, the viral proteins used for host cell entry bind to the receptor with the same tightness (affinity).

Knowledge is power.

Q"

Now see redacted publication "Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients" Zhuang et al.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32133832/

Results: When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%, in contrast, the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%. The multivariate-probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings, with a 75% probability for the false-positive rate of positive results over 47%.

Conclusions: In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives.

–THINK about WHY the PCR (antigen) tests give 80% false positives.

💡If SARS-CoV, the antigen shared by older Corona Virus, looks similar or identical to SARS-CoV-2, the China Virus, we should expect to see more ASYMPTOMATIC positives…or "false positives".

This could be the rationale the DEMs need for longer lockdowns to hold out for vaccines (coming in September)…and the "second wave" agenda.