Replies

"tests that find Coca-Cola COVID positive"

Sure, if one screws up the test and uses it completely incorrectly, one can get all manner of inaccurate results. The tests are certified to work under specific controls. Throw those out the window and the test isn't reliable. It doesn't mean anything about the reliability of the test when performed properly.

My thermometer tells me if I have a fever. If I hold it up against a light bulb [etc etc strawmen yada yada].

Let's say we have a disease that supposedly threatens millions of lives within the next year. One of the ways in which we hope to stave off that horrible, unfathomable result is by tracking the disease properly, so we can both treat it and prevent it from spreading. So we come up with a testing process, upon which, perhaps, the survival of the human race depends (given the extremity of the actions taken to suppress this supposed disease, in the form of lockdowns, universal masks, etc one must conclude this is akin to an extinction event).

Then, lo and behold, we find that the accepted testing process yields a positive result for f***king Coca-Cola, or yields a positive result for a globally-known entrepreneur 50% of the time, and a negative one for the other 50%, and other such anomalies. Are we going to be content with saying, "Oh, I guess the test was used incorrectly." or, as I suspect, would we be saying "What the F**K!!!! Why the hell aren't there iron-clad, unambiguous, titanium-rigid guidelines for performing this test, so that, in our hour of potential extinction, we don't misreport every g**damned result we test for?"

Or, perhaps put another way, when the threshhold for PCR tests is 35 cycles, and people are testing for COVID at 45 cycles and thusly are receiving false results routinely, the problem isn't with the test being used incorrectly - it is with the test being deliberately MISUSED to achieve a result that a proper test could not provide.