Butt out.

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.

Were done here. I'm not wasting any more of my time with this nonsense.

I think what thor posted might be a good place to end this.

Should have ended at #47 but it went on... as it will undoubtedly do from here as well.

Yeah, Nick The Almighty has spoken. Let that be the final word.

Yeah, I did. I said, essentially, that if it took 40 cycles to finally yield a positive result, it's a false positive. False positive, as in detecting dead virus fragments in a person with no clinical infection. In other words, nothing to worry about. Patient is neither sick or contagious. That requires live virus to be present, in some quantity.

If you can't see that in the graphs I have posted, then you're beyond educable.

See... Told ya so.

Proof be damned I tell you! Argue on I will even if facts are against me! 97% false positive!!

And yet, you keep avoiding the question. How many people out of 100, with a positive test result at 40 cycles, have live virus in their system? Can you calculate a percentage from that? You know, divide that number by 100.

I know. I'm going to take your word over that of someone at MIT. Where's Wayne at? I've got some choice words for him.

More data for Nick.

See if you can figure out why the CDC has backed off their suggested cycle number to 33.

I’ll give you bonus points if you can tell me why Fauci The Liar still hangs his hat at 35 cycles.

The data doesn’t extend all the way out to 40 cycles but, reasonable people can still make an inference.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1617550214.jpg

Because they haven't? The claim that they backed off to a CT of 33 is also fiction. Their suggestion is to use the tool as recommended by the manufacturer. But I'm sure you'll provide some proof that they backed off of 40 to 33... right?

Don’t take my word for it, take a look at the raw data and make up your own ****ing mind.

Find me that conspiracy JD! Dig it up!!

Oh trust me, I'm not taking your word for it. That's 100% certain.

It's not a false positive by any technical definition of the term. It might be an irrelevant positive, but it's not false.

Nope! After three weeks if they test you at above 35 cycles it's a false positive. Or at least that seems to be what JD is indicating here. I keep seeing "look at the charts" but one of us is looking at the information and coming up with the wrong conclusions. Me, I use the conclusions the folks who made the charts came up with. Someone else though sees it and says "look! 97% false positive!"

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1617551056.jpg

SmileWavy

I see the crowd giving Brock an added boost and he escapes the grip of Cena.

Yeah I used to watch WWE.

Not false? Irrelevant?

WTF are you testing for?

If I get a Covid test, I want to know if I have a viral infection. That's why I get the test.

What are you looking for?

Well, that explains a lot. Not something I'd be proud of...

Yeah and most of what you write is nothing I'd be proud of so....

Let's try a different approach. You say it's a "false positive" if there is no live virus detected. If there are markers of the virus detected they were indeed positive. Are they infectious? Nope.. but they were indeed positive because they have or have had the virus. You also make the assumption that a person who tests positive at or near 40 isn't a real positive case which is simply wrong. That person could be either in the beginning stages with low viral load or at the ending stages of fighting the virus. Either way, a positive is a positive.

But rage on bro! It's all a big conspiracy!

As I have said before, if I get a test I’m interested in knowing whether or not I have sufficient live virus in my system to cause me to suffer from an active viral infection.

I couldn’t give two ****s if I don’t have any live virus present within me but I have some quantity of dead virus or virus fragments.

To remind you of the context, we were talking about a person who had been vaccinated, who had no symptoms and who had a positive test that was followed by a subsequent negative test.

I will add that there was no mention of a previous Covid illness in this person, which I assume would have been mentioned had it been relevant.

One question you might want to research is whether or not you can ingest a sufficient quantity of virus fragments that cause you to test positive in a PCR test from someone who has previously had the disease and still shedding virus.

I don’t recall seeing anything definitive on that, although I suspect it is possible.

That is a distinction without a difference in this case. Reported as positive is positive. If it is an irrelevant positive, how is that different in any real respect from a false positive?

A false positive means you were never actually infected. In the case of a positive where only signatures and not culturable virus was found, you still had the virus which means you were a positive test.

Might tell your friend to contact the CDC?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cdc-ramps-up-scrutiny-of-rare-post-vaccination-breakthrough-infections/ar-BB1fubGl?li=BBnb7Kz