Replies

"Testing positive and getting the disease are too different things in a poor test."

So true, and yet the media like to play up those numbers. Why can't we counter with real science about how people test positive, maybe get the sniffles, and recover and are then immune and non-contagious?

The more this happens, the better off we all are. The media and their Dem masters don't want that to happen. They wish to keep everyone in fear.

I think I'm missing something, as I don't see or hear anyone at all discussing this. What is it?

This isn't about people who actually get the disease. The underlying issues is folks who test positive falsely who were never ever exposed. The underlying issue is that common low cost rapid turn around tests have low "specificity" eg. 95% vs 99.8%. That means that 5% of the people who are tested test positive with no exposure of any kind anywhere. So you could find that you have 50,000 people in your city with COVID when there are no actual cases of COVID, asymptomatic or otherwise in your community.

False negatives are also a problem for containment and quarantine. If 100 people have Ebola and you lock down 99 and let one loose, you have no effective containtment. Even 98% specificity is almost useless for epidemiology [as opposed to individual treatment] if only 1% of your population has ever been exposed.