Your first study takes rt-pcr testing as the reference and cannot make statements on its accuracy. Your second study is flawed as indicated by the comments on

Your first study takes rt-pcr testing as the reference and cannot make statements on its accuracy. Your second study is flawed as indicated by the comments on it, it’s a meta study based on poor data. If you choose a point and go looking for studies to support it, regardless of quality and ignoring studies that do not, that’s not science. And by the way, your studies are about something that is not important here. What is important here is if the patient carries virus particles in his airways so they can infect others, not if they are infected themselves.