Quote:
Originally Posted by cabmando
If they're finding live virus at 40... they're infected right? Can they spread the virus if detected at 40? The article from MIT stated the lower the cycles the more viral load a person had. And for what it's worth, no he's not on point. It's absurd IMO to say "If we would have stopped at...." The accepted threshold seems to be 40. Is there an argument for lowering it? Maybe... but it is where it is and at 40 they were finding live virus which creates a positive test for covid.
|
The test doesn't measure live virus - - it could be "live" or not. It measures the concentration of indicative DNA fragments that have been multiplied/doubled to the Nth power, where N is the number of cycles. If patient X tests positive at 30 cycles, but patient Y only at 40 cycles, then the viral load of X is roughly 1000 times higher than Y (2^10=1024), so we agree there. The issue, as highlighted in the article, is that many in the industry believe that anything above 30 cycles leads to false positives - - that was Java's point and the point I highlighted - - and no, 40 cycles is not universally accepted as evidenced by the article I posted . The article even goes on to highlight that 40 cycles generates up to 90% false positives, which was another of Java's points. And yes, It's possible to have been exposed to the virus without becoming sick or being at a viral load where others are at risk from you. That's why we have an immune system and didn't always have to wear a mask on the grocery story... 'Twas a simpler time, when one didn't have to think for oneself (or Google) and could could trust that governments and media had our best interests in mind.