3 ms·

You should probably investigate how sensitive PCR tests can be. We cranked those things up to 11 so anybody with a spec of the virus got labeled as a Covid case

You should probably investigate how sensitive PCR tests can be. We cranked those things up to 11 so anybody with a spec of the virus got labeled as a Covid case.

dragontamer 4y ago
Which PCR test? Be specific. Because each test kit has documentation on how well it has cross-reactivity to other virus strains. I know its complicated with lots of competition here in the USA and lots of different manufacturers. So I need to know exactly which test kits you were using, and which virus (Influenza type A? H1N1? Adenovirus? Influenza Type C?) EDIT: For example, Abbot's test kit has the following documentation: https://www.fda.gov/media/136258/download https://www.fda.gov/media/136258/download . We can see page 10 how much it cross-reacts with other viruses: which is not at all.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  It doesn’t even matter honestly. The data used to justify all our incredibly costly mitigations is a toxic dumpster fire. You could take that data and twist it to justify anything you wanted. And even then the actual science and data never mattered from a public policy (or even public health) standpoint. It’s been politics, fear-mongering and straight appeals to authority all the way down.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > You could take that data and twist it to justify anything you wanted. No. My question is if your side has any data at all on the assertions you're making. Because in my experience, with regards to this debate, one side seems to just be flaunting falsehoods, while the other side has actually done tests and demonstrated their results. I'm trying to figure out which side you're on. The side with data, or the side without. If you think the data was poor, fine, whatever. Where's your data that supports your viewpoints? Even if you break someone else's argument, it doesn't matter unless you yourself have data that supports your own side.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      It’s not my job to prove masks work, lockdowns work, or vaccines work. That isn’t how science works. You can’t prove shit doesn’t work. The hypothesis is these mitigations work and are worth their respective costs. The burden of proof is on the people making these claims and pushing to enact them. Outside of vaccines I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence that any of our NPI’s worked in a way that justified their incredible costs on society. The fact that we did them without any understanding of their efficacy is astounding to me.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > It’s not my job to prove masks work, lockdowns work, or vaccines work. Can you stay on topic? This subthread is about a simple discussion. Do COVID19 tests detect the flu? The answer is no. Now if you wish to move your goalposts. Feel free to do so. But don't expect me to condone or accept your obvious fallacy. If you're changing the subject so intensely, I more or less take it as a discussion win in my favor at this point. I think I've readily proven that your earlier discussion point has no data behind it. And I have no reason to believe you have data behind any of the other discussion points you're bringing up. EDIT: Now if you start posting some data, maybe I'll start to listen again. But I'm not going to take or respect just wanton assertions in this subthread.

You should probably investigate how sensitive PCR tests can be. We cranked those things up to 11 so anybody with a spec of the virus got labeled as a Covid case.

dragontamer 4y ago

Which PCR test? Be specific. Because each test kit has documentation on how well it has cross-reactivity to other virus strains. I know its complicated with lots of competition here in the USA and lots of different manufacturers. So I need to know exactly which test kits you were using, and which virus (Influenza type A? H1N1? Adenovirus? Influenza Type C?) EDIT: For example, Abbot's test kit has the following documentation: https://www.fda.gov/media/136258/download https://www.fda.gov/media/136258/download . We can see page 10 how much it cross-reacts with other viruses: which is not at all.

spookthesunset 4y ago
It doesn’t even matter honestly. The data used to justify all our incredibly costly mitigations is a toxic dumpster fire. You could take that data and twist it to justify anything you wanted. And even then the actual science and data never mattered from a public policy (or even public health) standpoint. It’s been politics, fear-mongering and straight appeals to authority all the way down.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > You could take that data and twist it to justify anything you wanted. No. My question is if your side has any data at all on the assertions you're making. Because in my experience, with regards to this debate, one side seems to just be flaunting falsehoods, while the other side has actually done tests and demonstrated their results. I'm trying to figure out which side you're on. The side with data, or the side without. If you think the data was poor, fine, whatever. Where's your data that supports your viewpoints? Even if you break someone else's argument, it doesn't matter unless you yourself have data that supports your own side.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    It’s not my job to prove masks work, lockdowns work, or vaccines work. That isn’t how science works. You can’t prove shit doesn’t work. The hypothesis is these mitigations work and are worth their respective costs. The burden of proof is on the people making these claims and pushing to enact them. Outside of vaccines I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence that any of our NPI’s worked in a way that justified their incredible costs on society. The fact that we did them without any understanding of their efficacy is astounding to me.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > It’s not my job to prove masks work, lockdowns work, or vaccines work. Can you stay on topic? This subthread is about a simple discussion. Do COVID19 tests detect the flu? The answer is no. Now if you wish to move your goalposts. Feel free to do so. But don't expect me to condone or accept your obvious fallacy. If you're changing the subject so intensely, I more or less take it as a discussion win in my favor at this point. I think I've readily proven that your earlier discussion point has no data behind it. And I have no reason to believe you have data behind any of the other discussion points you're bringing up. EDIT: Now if you start posting some data, maybe I'll start to listen again. But I'm not going to take or respect just wanton assertions in this subthread.