View Single Post
javadog javadog is online now
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: outta here
Posts: 54,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabmando View Post
And you're not supporting the claim of 97% false positive. Finding 8% of the people at 40 cycles with culturable live virus does nothing to support the ridiculous claim of 97% false positive at 40 cycles. Now as much as I'd love to continue with this, I see no point in it if you aren't able to support your initial claim. We can go off on tangents about cycle thresholds or whatever tangent you'd like but I'm not going to let you off the hook for supporting your initial claim. As I pointed out to Tobra, there is no evidence to support that absurd claim.
Stick with me. Remember we’re dealing with a small sample size, so let’s read the blue line on the graph, shall we?

You’re not looking at 8%, it’s under five. Could be two or three, the resolution is poor.

Remember, we’re considering only positive tests here. No negative tests.

Also, remember we’re throwing out any test that showed positive before 40 cycles.

So, I’ll ask again, if you have a positive test and it took 40 cycles to yield that positive result, what are the odds of getting a live virus in the test?

Lastly, don’t forget that I’m not interested in a test result that doesn’t also yield live virus.
Old 04-03-2021, 04:22 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #82 (permalink)