/sci/ - Science & Math

Forgot to share the link.
https://apps.who.int/flumart/Default?ReportNo=10
Play around with the dates as much as you like, you will find that the months following march 2020 are a total anomaly in terms of recorded cases.

the flu
the jew
the everlasting loo
lies upon lies
those who believe
shall end up in pee

>>12296827
Yeah, the transmission of flu is much harder when you do the things to prevent the big wuflu.
Maybe the chinkchonks were on to something when they were wearing masks to stop spreading regular flu even before all this happened.

>>12296863
OR, many of the "covid" cases were actually the flu. After all, sars-ncov-2 isn't even a year old, we could hardly expect to get the science of the testing correct in such a short timeframe
Do you find this explanation less likely, and why?

>>12296863
But global cases are virtually down to zero, despite the measures taken against the wuflu widely varying both between countries and by time.

>>12296827
Without any social disntancing/mask wearing, flu has an r0 of 2 and covid has an r0 of 6. Social distancing and mask wearing brought the r0 of the flu below 1 but covid's is still higher than 1, hence covid spreads and the flu doesn't.

back to /pol/

>>12296902
the r0 of 6 number comes from a single poorly documented event in China

>>12296872
So your argument is that the tests are wrong and the positive tests are actually detecting influenza, a drastically different virus?

And that's more likely than 'mask block big sneeze'?

Are you retarded?

>>12296902
Even assuming that to be true, we should still see an uptick in flu cases as the measures are reduced. Instead we see reported flu cases flat lining after march, regardless of measures being lifted or reintroduced.

>>12296902
>r0 of 6

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_4
>The reproductive number – the number of secondary infections generated from one infected individual – is
understood to be between 2 and 2.5 for COVID-19 virus.
So it's a little more infectious than the flu. Yet we see huge spikes in corona infections (muh second wave) and virtually none in the flu.

>>12296919
No, it's more likely that they're detecting the coronaviruses that cause the cold, or are just giving a false. My argument is that many of the people who would have had the flu this year and didn't actually did, they just thought it was corona. My argument about "mask block big sneeze" is that the flu went down similarly in both the US and in the rest of the world, yet supposedly the US is still struggling with corona because we won't mask

>>12296965
So what explains the excess deaths and the non flu-like symptoms of those with bad cases.

>>12297177
"Excess deaths" seems like a bit of a meme to me, and I'm not saying there was no covid anywhere, although if I wanted to go down that road I could say it's a different strain of the flu

>>12296827
no, you retard. why are you starting threads? This is low-quality bait.

>>12296872
>we could hardly expect to get the science of the testing correct in such a short timeframe
Anon, I know you're a dumbshit redneck, but they didn't have to invent a new method of testing just for covid, and neither are coronaviruses some new and previously unknown viruses

>>12297191
>"Excess deaths" seems like a bit of a meme to me
That's an airtight explanation for not knowing how numbers work. You're a retard.

>>12297207
Of course they had to invent a new method, it's not like they give you a MERS test and it comes back with "you don't have MERS but you do have covid"

>>12297247
Sounds to me like you're the eehxpert

>>12297177
If you put the whole country under house arrest and force people to breathe through the cloth, you can expect some deaths.

>>12297303
Can you explain the mechanism by which cloth causes all these excess deaths?

>>12297321
>so you're saying cloth is the only thing that caused deaths
>there must be a single mechanism causing this then
not that anon but you are a very simple thinker

>>12297331
He mentioned the cloth. Explain how it kills people or don't mention it at all.

>>12297340
one way: people don't wash it enough and so they're breathing through a gross dirty fabric for hours.

>>12297356
So how does that kill people?

>>12297360
Decreases the overall functioning of your body, since it's obviously not good for you (unless you contest that this is obvious).

As a citizenry it is within our God given rights to demand from the testers the full bayesian inference for each of the many different test kits deployed. Lumping the results from different tests in the press without these numbers is disingenuous and ill descriptive.

>>12297366
>unless you contest that this is obvious
I contest that this is obvious. Everything on the inside of the mask was already inside you. everything on the outside doesn't easily go inside. Does eating your own boogers cause health complications?

>>12297368
>Everything on the inside of the mask was already inside you. everything on the outside doesn't easily go inside.
Maybe if you've got a proper respirator, but we're talking about cloth here. Air goes out and comes in around the sides mostly.
>Does eating your own boogers cause health complications?
Yes actually, according to a quick Google search.

>>12297374
A quick google search will tell you that it's icky. You need more than that to propose that scientists are part of a massive conspiracy.

>>12297377
>A quick google search will tell you that it's icky
What's "it" here? Eating boogers? I'm getting results that literally say "this is bad for your health"
I never said scientists are part of a massive conspiracy, unless working with limited information provided to you by somebody as part of a conspiracy makes you part of a conspiracy

>>12297379
Notice how none of those results are actually quality? Buisness insider Mens health Youtube.

>>12297383
ok
Anyway, you can also get mold growing on a mask

>follow the data anon
>anti-vaxer = anti-science

>>12296854
>lies upon lies
>those who believe
>shall end up in pee
Doesn't even rhyme

>>12297408
Czech republic was really big on masks too
by doomer logic this graph is evidence that masks cause more deaths

>>12297321
1)Reduced airflow
2)Bacteria breeding inside the wet mask
3)Questionable cloth materials
4)Allergies
5)Increased viral load when you breathe it back
For "all" see >>12297331

>>12297415
They do

This thread is shitty bait and OP is a retarded faggot

>>12296827
Did we kill the flu? This means that excess deaths is an underestimate of covid damage.

>>12296872
>OR, many of the "covid" cases were actually the flu.
Nope. PCR is not going to mistake influenza and a coronavirus. And the Southern Hemisphere tested specifically for influenza during their flu season. The fact is influenza isn't that transmissible, and the protective measures for SARS-CoV-2 are likely very effective at preventing the flu.

>https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm
>To assess influenza virus activity in the Southern Hemisphere, influenza laboratory data from clinical and surveillance platforms reported from Australia, Chile, and South Africa to WHO’s FluNet§ platform were analyzed. For each country, the percentage of samples testing positive for influenza for April–July (weeks 14–31) for four seasons (2017–2020) are presented. Selected measures implemented to respond to COVID-19 in these countries were ascertained from government websites. All data used were in the public domain.

>In the Southern Hemisphere countries of Australia, Chile, and South Africa, only 33 influenza positive test results were detected among 60,031 specimens tested in Australia, 12 among 21,178 specimens tested in Chile, and six among 2,098 specimens tested in South Africa, for a total of 51 influenza positive specimens (0.06%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04%–0.08%) among 83,307 tested in these three countries during April–July 2020 (weeks 14–31). In contrast, during April–July in 2017–2019, 24,512 specimens tested positive for influenza (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.6%–13.9%) among 178,690 tested in these three countries (Figure 2).

>>12297395
>>12297438
LIterally none of that is proven or even likely.

>>12297763
why is it not likely that mold would grow on an unwashed mask?

I run a microbiology clinical lab. The flu at our hospital had a 25% positivity rate in March by May it was at 0%. Covid was <1% post shutdown until July. Still no flu as of last week but our viral panel is seeing 25% positivity for rhinovirus. Flu should come back but less than last year due to masks, no school, and social distancing.

>>12296872
>we could hardly expect to get the science of the testing correct in such a short timeframe
if you knew how the tests worked you wouldnt say that

>>12297799
>Still no flu as of last week but our viral panel is seeing 25% positivity for rhinovirus.
Wait, so rhinovirus is more contagious than the flu? Or is there simply no one with the flu to spread it?

>>12297763
Sure, just like 2+2=4 isn't proven or even likely.

>>12297770
Anon I know nothing about you and you could very well be an intelligent person but this post was really retarded.

>>12298220
Great answer

>>12296827
CAN WE CROSSCHECK THIS WITH PIZZA DELIVERIES IN WASHINGTON DC TO SEE IF IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH GEORGE SOROS PEDO RING??

>>12298738
>epstein suicide

>>12297567
>PCR is not going to mistake influenza and a coronavirus
Not all cases take a PCR test, and some cases prefered to COVID-19 protocol--like it says in the report you cited

>>12299125
Care to cite where it said that was happening in the countries listed?

>>12300487

Cite what exactly? Or did you scheme the article?

>>12299125
>like it says in the report you cited
I'm asking where it says that, because the section you're referring to is discussing U.S. testing.

we social distanced and wore masks, you faggot. This stops the flu

>nothing but ad-hom in this thread
Get the cocks out of your mouths and think you worthless crackers.

>>12300529
Initially, declines in influenza virus activity were attributed to decreased testing, because persons with respiratory symptoms were often preferentially referred for SARS-CoV-2 assessment and testing.

>>12300531

Lol no social distancing at all in my country yet flu vanished. Also no stupid useless mask either. What now you dumb fuck redditor?

>>12297408
Data is anti-science. Anyone who disagrees is an anti-science racist.

>>12296853
Thx for link!

There are other strange things:
1. What happend 2009?
2. Why increasing? World population size?

>>12296827
>Correlating exploitation of a situation with the situation not actually existing.

You have to go back.

Remember that a vast amount of deaths can be blamed on people who promoted public transport and tried to ditch the cars.

>>12296965
>they're detecting the coronaviruses that cause the cold
>THAT CAUSE THE
>COLD

Oh dear.
The absolute state of this.
On /Sci/

>>12297191
>"Excess deaths" seems like a bit of a meme to me,

This has to be bait.
Surely?

>In b4 muh excess deaths did happen but all of them were largely cos of the COVID restrictions.

>>12297408
There is one vaccine story which has legs.

The Polio Vaccine trials in the Congo that were done by some retard prof. that correlates with the discovery of HIV.

Vs
the actually based good Polio vaccine we use today.

>>12300570
Name country.

The difference in East Asia vs the West is marked.

>>12300607
Is this some kind of post-ironic trolling where you feign disbelief at something true? Some colds are caused by coronaviruses

>>12300598
swine flu

>>12296872
>we could hardly expect to get the science of the testing correct in such a short timeframe
The tests basically loik for the genetic sequence, there is nothing that would need to be made right or wrong.
Also it feels nothing like the flu.

>>12300677
>Some colds are caused by coronaviruses
"Some" Does a lot of fucking work there with the goalposts movement. Also you still haven't proved that the cold causes a false positive on covid-19 tests.

>>12296827
>>12296853
>trusting WHO numbers
ishyddt

>>12300569
>Initially, declines in influenza virus activity were attributed to decreased testing, because persons with respiratory symptoms were often preferentially referred for SARS-CoV-2 assessment and testing.
In the USA, which has no relevancy to the quote I gave earlier showing incredibly low positivity rates in Australia, Chile, and South Africa.

>>12300761
how would I prove that?

>>12300977
By citing a study or doing research. If all your argument just boils down to the tests being wrong then you are essentially just saying there's a conspiracy with everyone who made the tests and everyone who is in a position to validate the tests.

Big if true doesn't mean true. You actually have to have evidence to believe something or you're just a fucking lunatic.

>>12300827
The paragraph was about surveying under mandated conditions of the pandemic. So it includes those territories as well.

>>12296827
It's because nobody gets tested for influenza A vs. B, they get tested for SARS which is basically the same minor disease. You can only amplify what's between the primers, and I can't see anyone in the shady "COVID test industry" doing any sort of fancy MiSeq or even running two different primer pairs with close-enough temp specs for a simple yes/no match.

>>12297763
Are you a complete dunce? If I wanted to give myself the coof, the first thing I'd do is strap a piece of non-sterile organic fiber in front of my mouth and nose.

>>12296827
Oh boy, another dumb /pol/zzed zoomie thread.

Back to your shitbox.

>>12301082
Are you kidding me? They explicitly excluded Australia, even going so far as to say they're testing more than in previous seasons.

>Initially, declines in influenza virus activity were attributed to decreased testing, because persons with respiratory symptoms were often preferentially referred for SARS-CoV-2 assessment and testing. However, renewed efforts by public health officials and clinicians to test samples for influenza resulted in adequate numbers tested and detection of little to no influenza virus. Further, some countries, such as Australia, had less stringent criteria for testing respiratory specimens than in previous seasons and tested markedly more specimens for influenza but still detected few with positive results during months when Southern Hemisphere influenza epidemics typically peak. A new Food and Drug Administration–approved multiplex diagnostic assay for detection of both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses could improve future surveillance efforts

For emphasis:
>Australia, had less stringent criteria for testing respiratory specimens than in previous seasons and tested markedly more specimens for influenza

How can you misconstrue that statement so badly?

>>12301138
> nobody gets tested for influenza A vs. B
But this is objectively false.

>>12301155
You're obviously illiterate.

Every following statement tacks on to the previous statement. Or did australia and the southern hemisphere not even have a pandemic?

>>12301221
>Or did australia and the southern hemisphere not even have a pandemic?
They did, and they continued testing for influenza at a high rate, per the CDC: "Australia, had less stringent criteria for testing respiratory specimens than in previous seasons and tested markedly more specimens for influenza"

>>12301221
Dude, why are you so committed to sticking to an obvious lie?

Is it too much to ask that when we finally put all these idiots in a FEMA camp, that their internet provided to keep them mollified will simply be a honeypot? Maybe an AI that just argues with them (if that isn't defined as cruelty by the Turing board)?

>>12296863
bullshit, how come the masures deisgned to stop covid-19 failed to stop covid-19 but worked so well for the flu? new york and stockdolm both have around 20% of their population that has gotten the virus, and their daily deaths graph look almost identical, despite strict measures in new york and few in stockholm

>>12300605
cars kill a comparable amount of people (if you look at the years of life lost) the us has a car crash death rate comparable to third world countries because of its over-reliance on cars as the main transportation method

>>12296827
>people take measures to avoid airborne illnesses
>significantly less contagious pathogen that much of the population is resistant to becomes almost extinct
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>12296872
Retard alert. Excess death numbers disprove your statement.

>>12296877
This

>>12296908
It comes from dozens of studies at this point

>>12297368
You put down your mask, maybe on a table, maybe in your pocket. Either way there's now stuff on the mask that wasn't in you before

>>12300537
Argument + adhom ***

>>12301349
Who the fuck puts their mask down on a table. What are you an animal? Also who the fuck doesn't regularly wash their mask?

>>12300623
pakistan u fuk ass

How did half of people who learned the phrase "ad hom" not learn what it means? Calling someone a butthead is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy. The fallacy is when you say that someone is wrong because they are a butthead.

>>12296827
I has a question.
If a single government ruled the world and enforced a mandatory 1 or 2 month lockdown by literally jailing people in their own homes, would the viruses that cause the common cold and influenza go extinct?

>>12301234
>doesn't know how to read a paragraph

>>12301372
>If a single government ruled the world and enforced a mandatory 1 or 2 month lockdown by literally jailing people in their own homes, would the viruses that cause the common cold and influenza go extinct?
With enough people in a single home, there's still the possibility they could spread it to each other over the course of two months, keeping the virus going until the lock down ends. It's also possible an immuno compromised person could still be carrying the virus by the end of the lock down. It would dramatically reduce the number of carriers in any case, but once international travelers are allowed back in, viruses will begin spreading again.

>>12297567
This. Influenza isn't as transmissible as SARS-CoV-2. Reduced international travel probably helped as well.

>>12301064
Yeah okay I'll drop my academic load and start doing serious research into this
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy if science is flawed. Scientists have worked with flawed theory and methods in the past, no conspiracy necessary.

>>12301358
Where do you put it when you take it off?

>>12301372
>If a single government ruled the world and enforced a mandatory 1 or 2 month lockdown by literally jailing people in their own homes

How would they enforce it? Who feeds them? Keeps power running? Tends the field, warehouses and maintains infrastructure?

Turns out people would still waltz around all the time and spreads infections.

>>12297191
>"Excess deaths" seems like a bit of a meme to me

>>12302990
are there disagreeing numbers of excess deaths from different sources?

>>12296872
and this is your average /sci/ poster in any COVID thread

>>12303018
Eyyy I made that post, what do you disagree with?

>>12296929
>>12296943
do you fucking idiots understand what happens to an epidemic when r0 < 1?
>>12296965
doubling down on being a retard
>>12297191
tripling down. do retards post more frequently?
>>12297356
>all my knowledge is my own Google research
>I'm a fucking idiot
COVID threads are honeypots for fucking idiots holy shit
>>12301349
your hands touch these surfaces and then your face (including your mouth/eyes) hundreds of times a day you fucking dimwit.
>>12301144
>t. doesn't understand jack shit

>>12303061
I notice this is a common style for orthodox corona dogmatists, all incredulity and no substance

>>12303023
Google PCR and read about it

>>12303071
that's the test that gives a shitload of false positives because they run it through 45+ cycles when it was never meant to go above 35 right?

>>12303066
I'm the same mass replier in most COVID threads because for some reason discussion of this topic attracts the lowest IQ anons like flies to a steaming pile of shit
>no substance
which clown was you, faggot, because the turds I responded to need only use their brains and Google a few things to see how fucking retarded they are. Being a retard is one thing, but a smug retard is a new level of D-K

>>12303083
>that's the test that gives a shitload of false positives
false positive rate actually rarely occurs, see
>https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734
Even if it did, that doesn't mean its misdiagnosing it as flu, as you originally claimed

>>12303087
Fascinating, tell me more about how people who disagree with you must be retards

>>12303102

Why don't you tell him about why he's wrong instead of sounding more retarded yourself?

>>12303083

I want to hear more about this

>>12303101
Having covid doesn't mean you can't have the flu too.
>have both
>asymptomatic covid infection that's on the way of getting better
>get super serious flu infection
>covid screening assigns you as covid patient
>recieve no antiviral flu meds
>die of flu
>count as cov-19 death

>>12303101
>Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly how accurate any of these tests are

From your own article.

The ideal case is a false positive rate close to zero. But with reports coming out of systematic overamplification of covid PCRs it can be much much higher than that.

>>12303101
I didn't claim that the tests were misdiagnosing the flu, I claimed that many of the people who suffered corona symptoms actually had the flu

>>12303116
Why he's wrong about what? The only concrete point he made that wasn't saying "This dumb" was
>your hands touch these surfaces and then your face (including your mouth/eyes) hundreds of times a day you fucking dimwit.
which isn't saying anything, sticking your hands in your mouth is already frowned upon hygeinically

>>12303116
>I want to hear more about this
https://www.saltwire.com/lifestyles/health/when-is-a-case-of-covid-still-covid-critics-suggest-the-gold-standard-of-testing-could-be-too-sensitive-505061/

>>12303120
So you started with flu misdiagnosis being a significant contributor, then its that the tests aren't accurate, then its simultaneous infection of the two... I'm not sure what you're arguing, and I don't think you are by this point either.
>>12303142
> I claimed that many of the people who suffered corona symptoms actually had the flu
Not sure of the source in OP since its the flu, but CDC confirmed cases that are reported are usually PCR (to my knowledge), which are pretty good at catching COVID when someone has it. You need to be specific about what criteria determines a COVID diagnosis. If it's just symptoms, as you're claiming, then that's a dogshit data set., and I really don't think that's the standard
>>12303138
>systematic overamplification of covid PCRs
... dwarfed by the number of infected that are asymptomatic and have the disease. This was apparent month 1 of the pandemic. You're exaggerating. Counts are underreporting and everyone knows this, not only bc of the asymptomatic factor but also the availability of tests
>>12303147
>sticking your hands in your mouth is already frowned upon hygeinically
wtf does this have anything to do with it, lol? The burden of proof is on you to show that mask-wearing is responsible for disease/morbidity. Your "common sense" Google wisdom isn't proof you fucking brainlet.

>Netherlands
>360k positive cases.
>Among people age 0-44 there's 24 deaths that's assigned to covid. 0.00006% chance of dying.
In short: The government is waging mental and economic and medical warfare against the majority of working people, they want you to be broke, they want you to feel bad, they want you to commit suicide or miss treatment for cardiovascular events or your cancer diagnosis.

If someone says something about protecting old people what they actually tell you that they want you to die.
Until people understand this, nothing will change.

>>12303158
Reading a bit, the general gist is that the PCR is detecting dead virus, testifying to the accuracy in determining if someone has or at one point recently had COVID - but the question is contagiousness and how this decides isolation protocols. How does this relate to false negatives/positives and flu misdiagnosis?

>>12303198
For a criticism of PCR tests see >>12303158
>wtf does this have anything to do with it, lol?
Follow the reply chain back, it went something like this
>Wearing a dirty mask is not good for you
>Why? Everything inside the mask was already inside you, everything outside you is outside the mask
>Not if you put your mask down on the table or your pocket
>Your hands touch those surfaces all the time
>Yeah and you're not supposed to stick your hands in your mouth
Fuck off with your burden of proof, this is a conversation and not a formal debate, and you can't tell whose posts are whose

>>12303216
Well not just if they recently had it, it's possible to have the molecule inside of you without your body having actually gone through a virulent process, and a sufficiently high PCR cycle count will detect even such a small amount

>>12303215
>they want you to commit suicide or miss treatment for cardiovascular events or your cancer diagnosis
How do you think having hospitals full of covid patients would improve this? Think a little.

>>12303233
How would hospitals having fewer covid patients improve it?

>>12303243
How is this even a question. Seriously.

>>12303252
can't answer it, can you

>>12303233
Do a PCI lab have much to do with covid treatment?
An oncologist? The radio lab?
Psychiatrists?

>>12303233
My mental health doesn't hinge on hospitals operating at all. Open up the rest of society. Covid is a nothingburger and no one young gets hospitalized for it.

>>12303281
Having the 'rona run wild will literally put everyone at risk. Unless you think it's a good idea to have a covid+ oncologist treat cancer patients on chemo?

>>12303290
>no one young gets hospitalized for it.
How would you know?

>>12303305
>Having the 'rona run wild will literally put everyone at risk.

"""Everyone"""" who is so frail they'll die from the smell of their own fart.

For children, young adults and in essence the entire working age population the lockdowns are DIRECTLY HARMFUL whereas the virus itself is NO RISK. More people in the 0-40 age cohort have died from lockdown related suicides than from covid. How's that for protecting people? And that doesn't include people with economic trouble, drug abuse problem, missed early diagnosis due to needless limtations of ordinary care that will shave years and decades off their life.

You can do as much mental gymnastics as you want but it comes back to a very simple fact: You want me to die

>>12303341
It's amazing how often this same line of reasoning is uttered with nothing to back it up.

>>12303290
This is a complete lie.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201026/COVID-19-now-likely-leading-cause-of-death-among-25-44s-in-USA.aspx

Notice how the right needs to lie to get their way while the left just keeps begging people to listen to the experts?

Makes you think.

>>12303359
It's amazing that you lie so much.

>>12303341
>For children, young adults and in essence the entire working age population the lockdowns are DIRECTLY HARMFUL
So, in essence, so frail they'll die from the smell of their own fart because they're confined in their own homes.
>More people in the 0-40 age cohort have died from lockdown related suicides than from covid
They would have kts anyway.
>people with economic trouble, drug abuse problem, missed early diagnosis
Same. You just postpone the inevitable.
>You want me to die
Only if you're so frail you'll die from the smell of your own fart.

>>12303138
>But with reports coming out of systematic overamplification of covid PCRs
Which would do what? If it's still detecting SARS-CoV-2 particles, even in tiny amounts, then why would that not be a legit positive?

>>12303435
You can have a bit of the molecule inside you without having been a case
The tests come with a reccomended uppper limit of amplification cycles for a reason, and that limit is being exceeded

>>12303462
>You can have a bit of the molecule inside you without having been a case
I don't really see why that's an issue, the person was clearly exposed at that point. A true false positive would be detecting a virus that never existed, or mistaking it for something else.

>>12303471
but he's counted as a case instead of "exposed"
science says everybody has at least one molecule from abraham lincoln's penis inside of them, doesn't mean they were personally raped by his zombie

>>12303435
>If it's still detecting SARS-CoV-2 particles, even in tiny amounts, then why would that not be a legit positive?

Contamination of test equipment, inactive fragments that ended up in your nose. Or remnants from an old infection that's no longer relevant for the purpose of preventing infectious spread.

>>12301362
Rate going up you absolute bell cheese in urban high density areas.

>>12303502
The article posted earlier raised the concern that it could be detecting the virus in people who are already over their infection and are no longer infectious. From the standpoint of telling someone to quarantine, that has some merit, but that would still mean they had an infection, so "false positive" doesn't seem like the correct phrase. It's a positive of a recent (or current) infection, the question is at what threshold are they still contagious. The other issue is that a very low number could mean they're at the beginning of the infection. The latent period (time from viral entry into the cell to bursting the cell) is several days, so a small initial exposure will take days for the numbers to start building. It's even been recommended that after a suspected exposure, to wait at least five days to be tested, because it's possible to get a false negative due to viral load being below the testing threshold.

>>12303558
What would you say would be a better phrase than "false positive"?
I would like to know what it would look like if we ran PCR tests for the common cold virus at as high a cycle rate as we do for corona; as far as I know, this experiment has not been tried

>>12303558
>>12303741
Consider, by the way, what would happen if the typical amount of amplification was increasing over a period of time. That would cause an artificial rise in cases...

>>12303558
Don't reason with him anon, he's retarded.

>>12303225
>For a criticism of PCR tests see >>12303158
It's not so much a criticism as it is a problem in using PCR tests to determine infectiousness and inform quarantine protocol... which was never argued to begin with so it adds net zero substance to anyone's argument LMAO
>this is a conversation
this is an argument. you're trying to show that you're right, and the only thing you have substantiating your drooling is what you think is "right" and your warped common sense. Wearing a mask is not the equivalent of sticking your hands in your mouth, and there's ZERO evidence to suggest wearing a "dirty" mask is deleterious to your health you anti-masking white mom faggot
>>12303228
... okay. So this ties into misdiagnosis how? If anything this helps my case that PCR is pretty accurate since it's able to pick up small amounts of the antigens in a patient. You idiots need to think before you keep posting.
>gone through a virulent process
wtf hahahahaha, you have NO idea what you're talking about
>>12303741
>What would you say would be a better phrase than "false positive"?
fucking nincompoop. if you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about don't spread misinfo. It's not a false positive because you have/had COVID recently and the PCR test shows this
>I would like to know what it would look like if we ran PCR tests for the common cold virus at as high a cycle rate as we do for corona
what would this fucking prove? flu has been around much longer than COVID. Even if you had COVID a month ago and PCR found antigen remnants that is a significant find, especially given the hot debate on waning immunity.
>>12303747
>Consider, by the way, what would happen if the typical amount of amplification was increasing over a period of time. That would cause an artificial rise in cases...
They're not testing people more than once. If you have/had COVID and the test says this, that counts as a case. This isn't artificially raising the numbers you faggot

>>12303741
>What would you say would be a better phrase than "false positive"?
Not sure, maybe something over a certain threshold should be "active positive" and the person has to quarantine, and below that threshold they need to monitor symptoms or be retested in a few days to make sure they're not developing an infection. But the ability to retest would obviously be dependent on the capacity of the testing system.

>>12303747
>That would cause an artificial rise in cases...
Not necessarily a bad thing *if* the extra amplification is deemed necessary (i.e. we learned there were people testing negative who went on to develop symptoms, who would have tested positive with more amplification). This is really an unknown, usually you test people who already have symptoms, but we're now testing people with no symptoms simply to make sure they're not infected, and that could require a more sensitive test since a pre-symptomatic individual could have a much lower extracellular viral load.

It really depends on which side you want to error on. A more sensitive test may catch people at the tail end of infections and cause them to quarantine unnecessarily, but a less sensitive test may miss people in the very early stages who could go on to be spreaders. I don't know how common either situation is.

>>12303228
>it's possible to have the molecule inside of you without your body having actually gone through a virulent process
Nasal mucociliary clearance time is under an hour. Unless you've had a very recent exposure, there shouldn't be viral particles to be detected, which makes it likely that a positive test is the result of a cellular infection.

>>12302980
Yeah but you need evidence to say something is flawed. Find the cracks or shut the fuck up.

>>12303829
>>12303980
>>12303997
Why do you think PCR has a suggested upper limit of cycles?

>>12304027
Beats me, because this paper makes a pretty good case that the current limits will miss a lot of cases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302192/

>>12304038
I guess either the experts who designed the tests are wrong or the experts who wrote this paper are wrong

>>12304049
>I guess either the experts who designed the tests are wrong
Did you see that apparently the upper limit varies significantly depending on the assay? There doesn't seem to be a consensus among the experts.

>However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold.

And regarding viral load:
>Viral loads spanned nearly nine orders of magnitude, from 9 copies/mL to 2.5 billion copies/mL (Fig. 2). Notably, patients were almost equally likely to exhibit low, medium, or high viral loads upon initial testing, with remarkable uniformity down to the LoD of 100 copies/mL (R2=0.99).

>>12304066
Interesting

>>12302573
>With enough people in a single home, there's still the possibility they could spread it to each other over the course of two months, keeping the virus going until the lock down ends
Oh yeah I hadn't thought of that.

>>12297886
Doesn't look like much. We destroyed our economy and surrendered to the CCP over this?