Only a vaccine will save us. We are simply too stupid as a people to suppress this virus with discipline and consistency. It could kill half the population and the other half would still be arguing about the constitutionality of mask mandates and what deaths should be attributed to.
I'm not the smartest guy around, but my wife is incredibly fucking smart, she can't believe some of the shit I've told her about that gets said on here. There is a real issue with scientific and mathematical literacy in this country.
lol no
Why are you so divisive? You have been acting like a change agent working for the NWO lately. What's your end game here?
I am just copying your posting style...so sorry.
30 what? 40 what?
Are you playing dumb sir?
What's a pcr cycle?Are you playing dumb sir?
There have been multiple articles and links on this topic in this very thread.
I think you have read them.
Here is a MSM article on the topic if you would like to read and pass on to the "smarter"people in your circle to discuss.
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.www.nytimes.com
"A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on."
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."
"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations."
TLDR PCR test is too sensitive at that number of cycles and should be reduced to a lower number of cycles...or be discarded altogether for another test, even if that test is less sensitive...widespread PCR testing misrepresents the "outbreak"
Hope that helps clear it up.
comment on the article if you want to discuss this...I meant to type PCR test cycle and I am not a lab rat so even that may be not be the proper term
I'm asking you to clarify your points and beliefs, but it seems like you may not even know what you are reading. Which is interesting that you have such strong feelings about it.
I posted word for word from the article(hence the quotation marks)...If you wanna pick that apart go ahead...If not then move on.
That's fine that you were able to parrot an article, anyone, even a bird can do that. Do you understand the article?
Tell me what I don't understand about the article.
You keep avoiding being able to explain what you are reading....I have a feeling you don't actually understand what you are reading.
In your own words, what does that mean?
Ur trolling.
I'm not trolling, I've been asking for you to explain in your own words, because I feel your scientific literacy may not be as good as you think it is, which causes you to easily believe pseudoscience and misinterpreted data. And you have been either unable or unwilling to do this, which leads me to believe you may not be intellectually honest when having conversations about this and other topics.
The ability to paraphrase is the easiest way to demonstrate reading comprehension
Pretty ironic since you won't even comment on the article.
No, you parroted what other people said, you haven't demonstrated that you know what you are reading.
wow
Respectfully, I'm asking the questions here. Why should someone show you the courtesy of answering your questions when you yourself do not show the same courtesy.?
Exactly why people have been responding to you the way they have lately.
