3 ms·

1st study says zero active virus beyond CT>32 and 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decrea

by toolz 5y ago

1st study says zero active virus beyond CT>32 and 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decreased to 8% active viruses All of those numbers are below 40ct - if this doesn't convince you that 40ct is the wrong number I don't know what to say - you've provided zero evidence that 40ct is beneficial and try to downplay extremely high false positives shown in three studies when you go to 40ct

mlyle 5y ago
"Extremely high false positives"-- no, inability to culture from the specimens, which isn't the same thing as a false positive. Please stop conflating the two. It's a sensitivity vs. specificity issue, as I've said before, and I'm willing to listen to arguments on those grounds. As the studies you've cited show, the vast majority of positive samples become so before 30 cycles. Then there's these relatively few "weak positive" results, where the ability to culture live virus is less. There's not enough of these to explain the number of cases, deaths, or overall excess mortality (as you've attempted to say elsewhere here, and others have rightfully corrected you). And these results being considered a positive is arguably a good thing while the virus is very common, as I've attempted to explain to you. > 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decreased to 8% active viruses Yes, but "infective at the moment you took the test" is not a useful metric. You want more people to be positive than this, so you can A) contact trace people who were infectious immediately before, and B) get people who were just infected to stay home -before- they're infectious. Of course, now that we're on a major downslope of cases, this tradeoff is changing...
- toolz 5y ago
  This is just silly, if you reject the methodology used in these studies to determine effective CT thresholds then it's pretty pointless having a conversation with someone who refuses to do anything other than restate their opinion without providing and evidence that supports their opinions.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    As I've repeatedly told you-- you're overstating your evidence here. Infectivity is not the gold standard of what should be a positive test.

by toolz 5y ago

mlyle 5y ago

"Extremely high false positives"-- no, inability to culture from the specimens, which isn't the same thing as a false positive. Please stop conflating the two. It's a sensitivity vs. specificity issue, as I've said before, and I'm willing to listen to arguments on those grounds. As the studies you've cited show, the vast majority of positive samples become so before 30 cycles. Then there's these relatively few "weak positive" results, where the ability to culture live virus is less. There's not enough of these to explain the number of cases, deaths, or overall excess mortality (as you've attempted to say elsewhere here, and others have rightfully corrected you). And these results being considered a positive is arguably a good thing while the virus is very common, as I've attempted to explain to you. > 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decreased to 8% active viruses Yes, but "infective at the moment you took the test" is not a useful metric. You want more people to be positive than this, so you can A) contact trace people who were infectious immediately before, and B) get people who were just infected to stay home -before- they're infectious. Of course, now that we're on a major downslope of cases, this tradeoff is changing...

toolz 5y ago
This is just silly, if you reject the methodology used in these studies to determine effective CT thresholds then it's pretty pointless having a conversation with someone who refuses to do anything other than restate their opinion without providing and evidence that supports their opinions.
- mlyle 5y ago
  As I've repeatedly told you-- you're overstating your evidence here. Infectivity is not the gold standard of what should be a positive test.