4 ms·
A few good points (like the PCR detecting only RNA which does not equate to live virus) in a sea of "interesting" spin about the current data. I really don't u
by lbeltrame 6y ago
A few good points (like the PCR detecting only RNA which does not equate to live virus) in a sea of "interesting" spin about the current data.
I really don't understand why it's "us vs them" in either camp ("doom and gloom" and "skeptics"). This makes things worse, since both camps tend to quote only evidence which support their respective claim (two examples: the Guardian saying that asymptomatic people spread more virus than the symptomatic ones, despite the study they quote saying that it can't be said, because they did not check for live virus; and some web page called "Swiss policy research" which quotes only the parts of the studies which conform to the "skeptical" narrative).
- Zenst 6y agoIndeed, with so much published stuff about it and still so much in the unknown and with that, our best evidence so far is what is published. then the ability to cherry pick across many sources of published data/reports and stitch together those in a way that you could make so many things appear legit, well. It really don't help as other people will just reference the sewn together published article and propagate from their. Vague news is after all, latent fake news most of the time alas.