Re: Enforcement it going to be tough
Facts checked, I am now safe to jump to the obvious conclusion that your post is, to repeat your words "driven... by greed and ideology."
Ah, facts still ain't what they used to be. Neither are conclusions drawn from irrelevant facts. But that's how propaganada spreads faster than a virus can, ie when the 'fact checkers' can't fact.
But such is politics. Or even science.. So-
On August 29th, Apoorva Mandavilli of the New York Times published a story entitled: “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.” Mandavilli interviewed prominent virologists about the current PCR testing performed in the United States. She reported that in many parts of the US cycle thresholds for the test are set very high, often as high as 40 cycles. Many prominent experts think this is too high.
I picked the WT article simply because it was the first reliable-ish source I could find that wasn't paywalled like the NYT article is. But it names names, some from the NYT and those names can be checked for potential level of cluefulness. Other facts are easy to check, ie the 'inventor'(s) of PCR testing won a Nobel Prize for their work, but they're also both dead.
But in these post-normal times, there are other easy ways to check facts. So bimble over to wiki, stick 'PCR Test' in the search bar, and land on this page-
without even the courtesy of a redirection notification. Curious why Wiki's hijacked PCR Test for Covid exclusivity, but then Wiki's always been curious on sensitive subjects. But it's a reliable source, just like Snopes, Politifact and that self-selected circle of jerks.
Meanwhile, back in the real-world, you can still click on wiki's PCR link, and find your way here-
Where it alludes to the Ct issue, but doesn't mention the Ct. Luckily the WT article has some quotes from people that do, and almost certainly have a better understanding of the issues than wiki's guardians of truthiness-
PCR positive for #COVID19 does not mean you are infectious
It means you have virus RNA
Like DNA left at a crime scene, it doesn’t mean the virus is still there
Which is a good analogy given that since the invention of PCR testing and DNA/RNA analysis, it's been used in forensics and the sensitivity arguments (along with FMR/FRR) have been argued over by expert witnesses for a long time.
But this is also the crux of the biggest 'fake fact', ie the fixation on 'cases' based on PCR tests. Run Ct >30 and you will find virus RNA, especially as a pandemic progresses.. But it's largely meaningless. Run PCR until there's a detection, look at the cycles taken to find a positive, and you'd get an indication of potential viral load. So positive on a low Ct, more virus, more likely there's an active infection.. At the point in time the swab was taken.
But again, such is politics. If you want to amplify the FUD along with Ct, gloss over the shortcomings and just keep watching say, the Bbc's meaningless test match results. But the Bbc isn't a reliable source, so check this instead-
If SARS-CoV-2 sequencing will not be performed locally and a specimen is available, the state public health laboratory should request the residual clinical respiratory specimen for subsequent shipping to CDC.
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing.
If the Ct value is not known (e.g., positive by antigen test only or by a molecular test that does not provide a Ct value), the positive specimen may still be submitted to CDC for RT-PCR and potential sequencing.
Because the CDC is a reliable source.. isn't it? Even if it just had to correct it's results for Florida..