Eh, so we just declare that because PCR tests can produce false positives, and that if you do it badly enough, that the false positive rate could be high, that logic dictates that validating other tests with this method is seriously flawed?
Tests done in a clinical setting are more susceptible to the usual cause of false positives, contamination of the sample. That’s why laboratory verification is done in as close to ideal circumstances as possible to allow us to check the reliability of the testing done in the field.
This is being done. That’s what I’m looking at when I talk about what we know about the reliability of the tests done outside the lab. Can you point to some analysis and testing that indicates that it’s likely that the PCR (well, RT-PCR in this case) testing is producing high false positive rates?
No perfect test exists, but there is strong evidence for the accuracy of RT-PCR testing, and in the case of the faster field tests, strong evidence that false readings are almost always false negatives. Your take away from all that? OMG THA FALSE POSITIVES WE’RE ALL BEING HAD.
And you want to lecture me on logic?
You actually have to demonstrate the validity of your statements about how things are before you get to say, just use logic, and therefore the answer is…
My FUD detector goes off hearing you talk the way you do. Lots of strong, but vague and non committal doubts and fears, but put them all together and logically it must mean something important. It just must!
When asked exactly what are you claiming, and what evidence do you have that can be analyzed to test your claims, you want me to do your homework!