Let’s repeat that, class: PCR is useless
I’m sorry boys and girls but we are going to have to repeat yesterday’s lesson (part one and two) since some of you in the back row didn’t get it.
Here is the exact quote from the White House briefing on December 29th 2021. Are you ready?
CDC director Walensky:
“Many are asking why do we not require a test at the end of the five days of isolation for those who are infected. We know that PCR testing would not be helpful in this setting, as people can remain PCR positive for up to 12 weeks after infection and long after they are transmissible and infectious. We also don’t know that antigen tests give a good indication of transmissibility at this stage of infection. On the other hand, we know that after five days, people are much less likely to transmit the virus…”
Did you catch it? No? It’s ok, it is a bit blurry but we’ll take it easy this time, step by step. Here we go, ready your brains:
The initial question is this:
“why do we not require a test at the end of the five days of isolation for those who are infected.”
And the answer is as follows:
“We know” - the CDC knows, they get it, it’s been established, settled, that is what they know, have observed and can presumably prove,
“that PCR testing would not be helpful“ - PCR testing is not helpful, that means meaningless, inconclusive, useless, pointless, a waste of time, of no value, junk, garbage, crap, not fit for purpose,
“In this setting” - this is a hard one so please pay attention since we are about to understand the context (ie. The setting) in which the PCR test is not helpful.
The setting here is implied in the first sentence: people isolate for five days when they are ‘infected’. How do they know they are ‘infected’? Well, they take a PCR test. So the setting here is people who took a PCR test to find that they are infected. They than isolate for five days and could take another PCR test but the CDC does not require it because it is not helpful. Why it is not helpful? We may assume that, if it was ever helpful to start with, it might have only been helpful five days ago, when the person tested and found out they were infected. In short, in the setting when people take a PCR, another PCR is not helpful. Makes sense? No, but let’s move on, and we’ll have some more clarity afterwards.
“as people can remain PCR positive for up to 12 weeks after infection” - This one is also a bit hard to swallow and I understand why some of you didn’t get it yesterday but we’ll just go through it slowly and with a bit of practice I’m sure you can figure this one out too.
So you go to your local testing site and the nice people over there stick a loooong swab up your nose, that’s the PCR test that shortly after shows you ‘positive’. That’s it, you’re in. What happens then? Well, you isolate for five days. No big deal. Day six, you’re free, all is well. PCR, as we have just learned is not helpful any more. And won’t be anymore helpful for the next 12 weeks, or 11 weeks and 2 days, or simply the next 79 days.
After that it might be helpful again, we don’t really know as Ms. Walensky didn’t clarify that for us. But assuming that is the case, since PCR’s are a big deal, we may safely surmise that if you get infected a lot, the PCR is helpful at most about four times a year. We won’t get into math here but trust me when I tell you 12 months divided by 12 weeks leaves roughly nothing.
See now? It’s easy, PCR is mostly not helpful, but it’s helpful sometimes.
Next part:
“and long after they are transmissible and infectious” - this one is easy because we all get to use our imagination. How long is a long time? Well, long but in this ‘setting’ we may assume is more than 12 weeks, hence the PCR is not helpful less than 4 times a year. That leaves a narrow margin which we may safely understand by the last part of this statement, skipping the part about antigen tests which is another course altogether:
“we know that after five days, people are much less likely to transmit the virus”
And there you have it kids, after five days, no transmission, PCR not helpful. I’ll help you with the last bit of reasoning to conclude this class. Now let’s read the original statement one more time:
“We know that PCR testing would not be helpful in this setting, as people can remain PCR positive for up to 12 weeks after infection and long after they are transmissible and infectious. (…) we know that after five days, people are much less likely to transmit the virus”
Follow along and let’s repeat what we learned today:
PCR is useless as one can be ‘positive’ long after they are infectious.
Good. Now let us conclude. When we add another little bit of information that we learned in the beginning of last year, that a person may be infected once, and there follows either recovery, hospitalization and/or death we may safely conclude now that PCR may only be helpful 5 days a year, or once a lifetime, at most. And that is only if one tests the day they got ‘infected’.
Thank you all for your attention, and for those of you who who are not sure they understood today’s lesson, I regret to say you failed the class, please fit your masks and don’t forget to sanitize on your way out and if you feel unwell there are clear markings to the dispensary where you can take a PCR test. The rest of you please proceed to the exits and make your own way out.
Class dismissed.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/12/29/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team-and-public-health-officials-76/