this adjustment they did specifically addressed the cycle threshold in a negative way
The word “cycle” is in this notice exactly zero times.
The word ”threshold” is in this notice exactly zero times.
A quick search on “cycle thresholds” brings up a million hits on “alternative news” conspiracy sites.
It does not say what you think it does. If you want to say that the cycle threshold was changed in a way that could result in a significant reduction in nationwide metrics, you need to cite something that can support that.
Please correct your false post above.
"The FDA is working with sponsors whose authorized tests are impacted to update their labeling to reflect potential changes in performance of their tests, and to consider modifications to the test if needed."
Read that again— change in
labeling about
potential changes in performance. You are completely ignoring all of the text in the notice that makes it clear there is no material impact on results today. This is a forward looking effort to avoid bad results in the event of future mutations. It is simply saying that the existing labeling on these 3 tests is no longer comprehensive and needs to be updated.
The only way out safely is to follow the science. [...] But ignoring the evidence or trying to cover it up will only lead to more death. Trying to censor the truth is a dangerous thing. Book burners were never on the right side of history. Same with trying to silence science and the truth on the internet.
You are contributing to precisely this problem, though I‘m not sure you intend to. I think you’re suffering from confirmation bias. Look at my post history on this topic and you’ll see I’m far from a book burner or anti-science. You need to follow the science no matter where it leads, not misinterpret results because it fits your perception.
For example, by incorrectly stating that the decline in new cases is a result of a sudden reduction in test sensitivity, you are discouraging people from being tested and trusting the results of those tests, encouraging people to discredit other factors such as behavioral restrictions at the state level and people’s individual changes in behavior patterns. Your interpretation of the notice is wrong, and that interpretation will lead to bad outcomes.
Furthermore, just on the math of it all, your conclusion is nonsensical. Please, listen to what I’m saying, examine the facts, and reconsider spreading bad information.
Maybe you think you’ll convince people that the virus is more prevalent than they think it is and we’re suddenly blind, but you’re also giving people false causality to discredit efforts that are truly effective and when you’re point is found to be wrong after strenuously arguing for it here then you’ll have lost credibility for your arguments.
So let’s look at the math of the situation:
The FDA has approved more than
300 different tests for Covid-19. The notice you linked to addresses 3 of them. Two of which are unaffected because they test multiple sequences of which only one is tweaked by the UK variant, and the third they suggest is not apparently impacted significantly.
So, 0.33% of tests are of interest, but don’t appear to be significantly impacted.
Now, look at the magnitude of the drop in cases as shown in your second link:
That’s, what, conservatively a 50% drop since early January? Probably more.
You are claiming that an insignificant impact on 0.33% of tests has led to more than a 50% decrease in positive results. Now I don’t know how widely used that one test is, but I’d say that even if it was the only test used this doesn’t make any logical sense— the FDA wouldn’t call that kind of impact ”not significant”.
The directive was released January 8th, and you can see from the "daily new cases" they began to artificially fall starting January 9th.
If you think you can pinpoint a particular day that things changed in data that noisy, then you don’t understand statistics.
You also don’t understand the source data— this is the day results were reported, not the day the test was done. Do you also think the virus takes weekends off? You wouldn’t expect to see any reaction to this notice showing up in the data within 24 hours.
Your heart might be in the right place, but I don’t think you are correctly interpreting what you are reading.