Read on Twitter
Map shows COVID paying attention to geographical boundaries. There are different labs serving the North West; North East; Yorkshire and Humber; East of England and Midlands and the map gives a good indication of where they draw their samples from. 1/9
Likewise there are several London labs serving different areas. A real infectious disease does not respect geographical boundaries in this way. 2/9
Plus the ‘infection’ is still disproportionately in young adults. Real COVID outbreaks spread within a week to other age groups and within two weeks to every age group. The rise in the young is now 2 months old. 3/9
Rise in other ages is real but tiny. The rise in young adults cannot be real COVID. 4/9
I have huge respect for all the hard work that staff in our labs have carried out throughout the pandemic. But these results raises questions, not about their competence but about how we are testing. 5/9
Different kits are being used by different laboratories. I don’t know which. But for example the Seegene kit has not been checked by the manufacturer for cross reactivity with EBV. 6/9
https://www.fda.gov/media/137178/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/137178/download
Even a low rate of cross reactivity e.g. 10% of the time could produce the picture we are seeing. 7/9 https://lockdownsceptics.org/flu-like-illnesses/
This is not just a hypothetical problem. Sweden had a problem with the BGI kit in late August resulting in 3,700 false positive results which they quickly spotted through cross checking results. 8/9 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-sweden-testing/thousands-of-swedes-got-false-positive-covid-19-result-due-to-test-kit-fault-idUKKBN25L1YU
Positive results need to be cross checked with a different kit in a different lab. 9/9
@threadreaderapp unroll please
