Read on Twitter
Stunning new research finds C19 PCR tests are much too sensitive to be useful in assessing spread. "In 3 sets of testing data...compiled by officials in MA, NY & NV, up to 90% of people testing positive carried barely any virus." The implications are huge. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html?referringSource=articleShare
The CDC noted earlier that symptomatic cases are infectious for only a few days, but PCR tests can detect inactive RNA for up to 12 wks. It's now understood that the highly sensitive tests are also returning positives for very small amounts of active virus. https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1298403366347841536?s=20
PCR testing amplifies genetic matter to determine whether it is present or not, usually returning only a "positive" or "negative" result without any indication of viral load or level of infectiousness.
If 90% of positive test results are from individuals whose viral loads are so small that they aren't contagious, this is an undeniable signal that the response to the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 has been disproportionate by at least an order of magnitude.
This makes it abundantly clear that using raw case counts or positivity rates to establish public health policies - e.g., school closings, SIP order extensions, universal mask mandates - is absurd.
It also calls into question, again, the accuracy of the widely used COVID-19 death counts. Setting the "with/from" question aside, are up to 90% of deaths attributed to this novel virus invalid, as well? Given the new findings, it's not an unreasonable question.
