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">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/2...

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& #39;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">https://twitter.com/tlowdon/s...

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& #39;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& #39;s not an unreasonable question.