Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
If all that means is that the number of reported cases is far too high, it would just be a less contagious but far more deadly pandemic, so for us to not have a pandemic anymore I guess that means it would bring most of the 1.8 million dead back to life?
Oh, he had answers for that too. Your normal "it isn't really a pandemic", "morbidities are fake" and "look to Sweden". Now, I'm no expert on cycle thresholds, but it didn't take much research to figure out that the technical details were simplified to the point of being misleading. I saw it referred to as as "semi-quantitative" metric, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that using it in hard calculations is probably not the way to go.
There is a broader point that testing for diseases is rarely (never?) a perfect process. But to blow this up as an "aha! Gotcha!" moment is just silly. I mean, welcome to medicine? When it comes to testing and and measuring populations, he omits the central issue in testing:
Who do you test. Which, excuse the arrogance, is the classic example of a layman out of his depth.
An easy thinking exercise to see this testing principle in action is to consider how you would go about finding people who drive while drunk. Pretty much anyone would probably immediately narrow it down to people who drive, and then go from there and impose more criteria.