Quote:
Originally Posted by brainz01
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.
|
I saw this in your post. I'll have to go back and read the link to see where it says using 40 cycles creates a 90% false positive situation because that's not what this quote is saying.
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles,"
I went back and read it again and couldn't find where it stated that 40 cycles generates up to 90% false positive.