A scam called Kohn’s coefficient: personal attitudes

Had they been deprived of contact with the Serbian media in recent weeks, even the highest authorities in the field of statistics and epidemiology would have grudgingly admitted that they did not know what Kon’s coefficient was.

Without hesitation, they would list dozens of different coefficients, but this one would remain a secret to them, even if they were allowed to sift through all the available encyclopedias and all the scientific literature.

A minute or two would be enough for them to understand that this is the relationship between work and the whole, in this case the proportion of the number of positive respondents for a certain test in the population subjected (it would be expected) to the same test.

This is one of the basic ways of connecting the two numbers, known since the dawn of civilization, when the spoils had to be shared, so it would be surprising if in the 21st century it would strive to “rediscover” such a clear truth and, incidentally, by such a banal indicator to a markedly pretentious name.

Well, that’s exactly the “secret”! It is not a simple proportion, that is, a percentage.

The counter, however, is made up of people whose infection was confirmed during the day using a method that is considered the “gold standard”, the PCR test (PCR is the English abbreviation for polymerase chain reaction).

There is a problem with the denominator. The molecular biologists involved in the PCR tests insist they couldn’t process tens of thousands of samples a day, according to official daily reports, even if they worked three shifts without a break.

The denominator is artificially increased in four ways:

Respondents who first reported to kovid clinics due to problems were collected from people being tested for control (re) examinations. Most of these people have spent 14 or more days in the hospital or in home isolation, so it is expected that they have already been disfigured.

They are joined by travelers abroad, who are healthy (if they were not, they would not travel), so it is natural that they are negative.

Along with the two previous categories, there are also citizens who have undergone serological tests. These are tests whose use is not justified in the diagnosis of a new infection, and in our country, despite all the regulations, it is usually used at the beginning of the disease.

There are many indications that a certain number of ghost subjects are added to all this.

It’s pretty clear what this hoax is for: inflating the denominator artificially reduces the percentage of positive results, so it turns out that the situation is better than it is.

The creation of that illusion was especially important during the last three weeks of May and the first three weeks of June, that is, in the pre-election period, when people were supposed to feel relaxed and temporarily forget about risks.

Revenge came in the form of the second wave, much more violent than the previous one, and was hinted at by the increasing number of infected people.

Thus, in the first half of June, the percentage of positive respondents in some covid clinics occasionally reached 90 percent (say, 18 out of 20), but was “diluted” in the Institute “Trampoline” of the four ways described.

If necessary, the counter was lowered even further, so that the desired result was less than five percent.

It is the same dishonorable hand that reduced the death toll 3-5, even 7-8 times, ruining the memory of the great man of public health, Milan Jovanović Batut.

Therefore, the number of newly discovered positives divided by the number of citizens newly examined by a certain method, in this case the PCR test, is simply called a ratio and is expressed as a proportion or, more often, a percentage.

It was necessary to find a special name for the presented trick, and thus the Kon coefficient was reached, which will certainly not enter the annals of true science, but will have a place of honor in the anthology of scientific-professional fraud.

Many of us pointed this out strongly, and Professor Oliver Stojković put it more explicitly on a television program.

On the same day, Dr. Verica Jovanović, Acting Director of the “Trampoline” Institute, reluctantly granted him the right.

Yet the government is unmoved by this revelation and, as in other similar cases, continues stubbornly and harshly on its own.

It remains only to conclude how the injustice was committed to Dr. Kon.

He is the only one on the crisis staff who has occasional crises of conscience in front of the public and is trying to point out the truth.

Therefore, it would be more fair to call this indicator “personal”, and if it is already related to an individual, carry the name of a member of the Crisis Personnel who is more insensitive to facing the facts.

The author is a retired university professor of epidemiology, a member of the Council of the United Doctors Association Against Covid.

Related texts: