>>12303225>For a criticism of PCR tests see >>12303158It'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 conversationthis 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 processwtf 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 coronawhat 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
