Quote:
Originally Posted by Pants
We have discussed the issue with overly sensitive PCR tests many times in this thread and how those are not ideal because they lead to "false" positives.
The article's assertion that up to 90% of positive test are "clinically trivial" is the big deal. That claim is based on some article from NYT about a hospital in NY.
It's obviously very difficult to arrive at any exact science about the prevalence of positive tests which were not actually contagious.
Another take away is that it seems based on a number of non-peer-reviewed studies that the PCR cycle threshold should be set at 34 instead of 40.
By the way, has anyone heard anything from Hamas at all? That dude has been a ghost for some time now.
|
Yes, the 90% was mentioned in the NYT article from late August:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html
So, again, what's new?
__________________
I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?
|