Thanks for the clarification Mathew!

Expand full comment

One addition to my thoughts about PCR: while it doesn't make a good diagnostic tool, used in a proper way, it *could* be used as a general surveillance tool, with full understanding of false positives and negatives. But public health authorities are certainly *not* doing that.

After talking earlier this week with Steven Pelech, I'm no longer sure that the false positive rate is as high as I was led to believe from one paper that had been shared with me.


It gets complicated due to the weird definition of "testing positive" which might be a "best two out of three" subsequence positives. This gets into the complexity of the quasi-species swarm in which CoVs tend to travel.

Expand full comment