I’m too tired to do math, but the way I understand the chart is that at 35 cycles there were 74 positive results but they could only culture the virus in 2 of those samples. Not a very big sample set by any means.
I am a simple man, Gary.
I know you are not Gary but it fit the moment.
As I was saying, I am a simple man but I married a genius.
The genius works with this stuff every day so I ask questions.
I asked about what was posted and she said it was fearmongering bullshit.
She also said there was no such study done.
I read her a few lines of the one you linked and she told me that was not to find false positives but something about being infectious and viral load.
I have to be honest, Gary, I zone out when she gets going on the nerd talk.
She knows this so she usually gives me something to read.
This time she sent me this -
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/22?utm_campaign=wnews_sci_2020-10-01&et_rid=40176994&et_cid=3505046In a study published this week in Clinical Infectious Diseases, researchers led by Bernard La Scola, an infectious diseases expert at IHU-Méditerranée Infection, examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they harbored viable virus, indicating the patients were likely infectious. La Scola and his colleagues found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or below could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of the cases with CT values above 35. “It's fair to say that having a higher viral load is associated with being more infectious,†says Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of California, San Francisco.
