explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2558: Rapid Test Results

2021-12-22T21:25:20Z

141.101.69.104: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2558
| date = December 22, 2021
| title = Rapid Test Results
| image = rapid_test_results.png
| titletext = A solid red area with two white lines means that you have been infected with the anti-coronavirus, COVID+19, which will cure anyone you have close contact with.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|RAPIDLY created by a BOT with an old inconsistent cough, low temperature and an increased ability to taste food, that is NOT a reference to comic 2279- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a joke about COVID-19 rapid lateral flow test results. These devices are used in many countries for individuals to test their own nasal and oropharynx fluid for evidence of covid-19 virus to detect asymptomatic infection. These tests have two indicator strips - a test line for covid-19 and a control line to check the device is working correctly. Where a control line is not present, the test should be ignored and repeated.

The first 2 answers are the standard indicators for a negative and positive result, but Randall takes this to absurdity{{citation needed}}.

{| class="wikitable"
!Result
!Explanation
|-
|Control line only
|Negative
As for all such actual tests, the procedure has been activated, but only the Control result is complete. Without this Control line (which ''always'' shows after proper use), a used tester with a negative Test result would be indistinguishable from one not actually tested with, giving doubt or misdirection about the result; and possibly inviting re-use, with dubious consequences.
|-
|Control and test line
|Positive
This clearly shows the (un)desired test result, whether that is for the likes of pregnancy (until comparatively recently the occasion most familar for requiring this form of test) or the indicators of a specific infection.
|-
|2 wavy lines resembling the {{w|Approximation#Typography|approximately equal}} sign
|Approximately positive
While it would be possible to make the test produce wavy line(s) by default, and some versions 'activate' more complex patterns such as tick-marks or wording, the waviness or other patternation would not normally be contingent upon the testing state it must reveal, and ambiguity of detection would most result in a fainter Test line (which perhaps should be taken as Positive until shown otherwise).
|-
|2 lines closer together than usual
|{{w|College ruled}} refers to how college ruled notebooks in the United States have narrower spacing between the lines.
Though, again, the test could be designed to reveal this pattern, there is no simple way to make this a result-indicator of any qualitative or quantitative result. It also remains more desirable to maintain an easily-identifiable separation between lines and not risk the Test and Control lines bleeding together into one.
|-
|Four lines at varying lengths
|Mimics the standard image for a strong mobile (or cellular in the United States) phone signal.
There are tests which give multiple 'indicator test strips' for progressively greater/lesser sensitivity, perhaps to identify concentrations, or other qualitative differences like a 'fingerprint' of multiple targetable reagents, but this is not at all useful for a solid Yes/No question such as the one this scenario is supposed to be for.
|-
|2 lines on a background of radiating lines
|The 6th "result" is a reference to an {{w|optical illusion}} called the {{w|Hering illusion}}, where two parallel lines appear to bend inward.
Whether the radial lines can (or should) be designed into the test has no bearing upon the core test, and probably should not confuse the identification of what are ''supposed'' to be one/two ''clear'' straight lines.
|-
|Multiple lines in the shape of a scary stick figure
|In the found-footage movie ''{{w|The Blair Witch Project}}'' stick figures shaped like this indicated that the Blair Witch was near.
The test probably{{fact}} does not have any useful method for revealing the proximity of witchcraft, unless testably indicated within the sample material itself.
|-
|Three lines
|The final one is a reference to {{w|Hamburger button|hamburger buttons}}, an icon that is widely used on websites to reveal a menu.
As a 'read-only' display of results, there is no potential for further interaction by tapping the indicator material, and this may even spoil the state of the proof it gives.
|}

The title text is likely a reference to {{w|antimatter}}, which in reality mutually annihilates when coming into contact with regular matter. Here Randall postulates that there must be an equivalent but opposite virus to Covid-19 which he names Covid+19; which annihilates covid-19.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: COVID-19]]
[[Category: Comics with color]]
[[Category: Charts]]
[[Category: Fiction]]

Talk:2551: Debunking

2021-12-11T08:56:17Z

141.101.69.104: Couple comments on Doritos and microwaves

feels like we should address the factual accuracy of the headlines in this comic, ie point out which actual headlines/claims are being referred to by each, if any? - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 05:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If CNN comments on Santa's skin situation, doesn't that implicitly mean they are claiming Santa to be real (Spoiler alert: he isn't){{Citation needed}}? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.103|162.158.88.103]] 08:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
:or else they're simply avoiding "giving away the secret" to younger readers; though yes, in that case why publish the counterargument at all? - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 08:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

i'm sorry I seem to have lost my place [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 10:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

In the table it is mentioned that normal offices do not have microwave radiation. However, mobile phones use frequencies in the microwave band for communication. The same holds true for wireless networks (2.4 or 5 GHz is microwave radiation). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.183|162.158.92.183]] 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
:Is the 'number of microwaves' in the headline a reference to intensity of electromagnetic oscillations, or is it intended to be short for 'microwave ovens'? I had totally assumed the former (especially given the context). The idea that it could be referencing an appliance did not occur to me at all until reading the suggestion in the table that there would normally be "zero, with perhaps one or two in a break area," which took me a few beats to process. Personally I'm more fond of my original interpretation, but I'm starting to feel that it could be, uhm, debunked (although I suppose with digital technology and the right junction bandgap 'microwave photos' could be a thing).
::Doesn't this have to do with the whole craze there was about COVID being caused by 5G towers? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.104|141.101.69.104]] 08:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Dorito debunking may be related to a rumour you can find via the search term dorito-powder-hoax. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.161|162.158.90.161]] 10:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
: I'm thinking the headline would be along the lines of Doritos, the company, intentionally making powder that somehow defies gravity in order to cause irritation to consumers of the chips, in some kind of exotic mass social experiment about people's addiction to chips vs their exposure to unpleasant hygiene. I'm betting that most of the headlines here are some kind of 'extremification' of existing conspiracies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.105|172.70.114.105]] 11:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
::I think the Doritos myth has simply to do with the fact that it's so sticky 😂 [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.104|141.101.69.104]] 08:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Randall missed an opportunity here to tie this into the Real Name of the Bear comics - refuting a conspiracy theory about bears while simultaneously refusing to name the theory or the animal involved. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.97|162.158.75.97]] 11:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Pat

Is there any reason why the Peppa Pig/Zuckerburg headline is cut off? [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]]) 12:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
:Doesn't seem cut off to me. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 14:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
::In the table with the possible original claims that are debunked[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.161|162.158.90.161]] 15:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Oh. Probably to not make that row of the table too high. You can edit it, if you want. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
::::yeah, i was aiming to fit the headline on a single line; i wasn't sure how else to abbreviate it other than ellipses - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 18:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::Pff, it's easy to put it on two lines even! "'''TT:''MZuckHasOnlyNeutr.feel.tow.PeppaPig,whoHe u-st.isAFict.char.&heBl.t.cor-v.pand.onOth.factors." Totally understandable! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I see these kinds of headlines all the time recently: "Corona vaccine does not cause higher probability of [random obscure side effect I've never heard about]" [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 14:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since this comic was published in December 2021, "Dec 12th" is probably intended to refer to 12 December 2021, which I suspect might be a reference to 21 December 2012, the reported "end date" of the Mesoamerican Long Count (see [[wikipedia:2012 phenomenon|2012 phenomenon]] on Wikipedia). I wonder if someone's source had "21/12/12" or the like and this was [[1179: ISO 8601|misinterpreted]]... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.246.57|172.68.246.57]] 05:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)