Guess who called this one

[greediron]

&feature=youtu.be

[Guest]

90% of positive tests should be negative according the the report.  The amplification cycles are set so high, they find insignificant traces and count it as positive.

[Guest]

One America News Network???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Don’t care who they quoted or in what context, I’d like to see what experts are proclaiming that statistic.

[Guest]

@"SFVikeFan" said:
One America News Network???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Don’t care who they quoted or in what context, I’d like to see what experts are proclaiming that statistic.

Don't like OAN, check their sourcehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[Guest]

https://www.amazon.com/Fishing-Dummies-P...2?dchild=1&keywords=fishing+for+idiots&qid=1599261638&sr=8-2

[Guest]

@"greediron" said:
https://www.amazon.com/Fishing-Dummies-P...2?dchild=1&keywords=fishing+for+idiots&qid=1599261638&sr=8-2

Isn’t this the part where you cry and complain about being unfairly attacked ... while you insult me?

I like how you do the same fucking thing to others that you complain about being done to you.

[Guest]

Fascinating, could be a real game changer.  Seems like the feds need to get their act together and set the number of amplifications rather than leave it up to the labs.  Based on the NYTimes article, 30 cycles sounds like a better approach.  Where's the always cautious CDC, they need to get their butts in gear and resolve this question.  False positives can lead to significant financial hardships for families.

[Guest]

If you bother to read the literature it would be by changing the threshold viral load for a positive test, Duh.  The Times piece is a reporting on individual opinions not any studies saying they were false positives.

[Guest]

Clearly there needs to be scientific consensus on number of amplifications and assessing value of sensitivity and specificity of the tests with varying number of amplifications.  One needs to be open minded to the science and not be too quick to pick a side.  New research can show issues with the one time approved standard.

The NYTimes is not reporting "opinion", rather they are reporting results from three data sets.  Note, data not opinion.  Quote "In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found."  Unquote

The hundred dollar question "what is the diagnostic value of very low levels of virus fragments?".   Is it meaningless?  Indication of an old previous infection?  Indication of current infection?

[Guest]

@"IDVikingfan" said:
Clearly there needs to be scientific consensus on number of amplifications and assessing value of sensitivity and specificity of the tests with varying number of amplifications.  One needs to be open minded to the science and not be too quick to pick a side.  New research can show issues with the one time approved standard.

The NYTimes is not reporting "opinion", rather they are reporting results from three data sets.  Note, data not opinion.  Quote "In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found."  Unquote

The hundred dollar question "what is the diagnostic value of very low levels of virus fragments?".   Is it meaningless?  Indication of an old previous infection?  Indication of current infection?

They talk about data, but none is presented so that's an opinion about data.  If you talking about cycles, that's lab protocols, and I believe there are many variables in the PCR testing and will vary lab to lab.
You need to answer the question of, at what viral load does a person represent an active carrier in society, and that's open ended right now, we don't know with the Covid-19 virus. In a situation like this, any indication is significant in my opinion.  Particularly if you want to contact trace in an effective manner.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-b...ronavirus/
Are you contaminated from just  a single contact or can it be a cumulative effect from multiple exposures over the course of a day.  One thing that does stand out is the repeated use of relativistic terms like "barely any" or "huge numbers" to come up a with a quantitative estimate, "up to" 70%  or 90%.  I will be interacting with some folk who work with PCR regularly today, I'll point out this article see how much time they think it worth.
Update:Just spoke with the first person, whats being used is a process called QPCR, PCR is another type of test.  Her quick reply is that the number of cycles done depends on the quality of the "primer used"  these primers vary lab to lab.  Viral load also varies because of sample, whats being swabbed, so it's not a quantitative value of how sick someone is.  You have to do multiple tests on a known sample that has been isolated to make a quantitative conclusion, which is not what is being described in the Times piece. 

Update II:  The article is written by someone who hasn't does qPCR and is not an epidemiologist. qPCR measures the number of cycles a visible fluorescent signal attached to the primer is doubled to be visible.  This is not a measure of viral load, but how much virus was in the swab.  There are many steps from initial inoculation, viral load, entry to the cell, which presumably uses the ACE receptor, location of the cell, how the virus influences the cell, and the uniqueness of the host (males are more vulnerable than women, blacks seem to be more vulnerable than whites, old are more vulnerable than young etc).  Does the virus move to different body parts (heart, kidneys, brain, blood vessels, lungs). And none of this is necessarily related to the amount of virus in a swab!  We DO know that anyone who tests positive has been exposed to enough viral load to be infected and for the virus to begin to generate new viruses.  Symptom free or not they are still infected.  We also know that there are a high level of false negatives, where the PCR test failed to detect the virus because of many reasons.