Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael bass's avatar

The one time the morally bankrupt NYT actually takes a position that is ethical and factual and no one will pay any attention, as the almost demonic obsession with overhyped cases continues to be all that the irresponsible media and CYA politicians focus on.

Expand full comment
Allen's avatar

Hi Jordan,

Here's another case study on what you reference in this article. The results below are from the Cornell University current testing program- these are the last two weeks results:

9/13- 2,924 Tests; 0 Positives

9/14- 5,987 Tests; 0 Positives

9/15- 5,231 Tests; 0 Positives

9/16- 4,981 Tests; 1 Positive

9/17- 5,528 Tests; 0 Positives

9/18- 5,501 Tests; 1 Positive

9/19- 2,717 Tests; 0 Positives

9/20- 2,816 Tests; 1 Positives

9/21- 5,973 Tests: 2 Positives

9/22- 5,286 Tests; 1 Positive

9/23- 5,227 Tests; 1 Positive

9/24- 5,884 Tests; 0 Positives

9/25- 5,772 Tests; 1 Positive

9/26- 2,677 Tests; 1 Positive

9/27- 3,107 Tests; 0 Positives

You have to ask yourself how in the world can these numbers be like this based on what we are seeing elsewhere? Cornell does in-house testing using the PCR labs at their Vet school. They also use a more expensive taqman reagent- cheaper reagents are not as specific. The key question of course is what are the Ct values that they use and getting the answer to this has not been easy.

I work there and get tested twice weekly, swab tests, and use different sites in order to ask different supervisors about the Ct values. None of them know the answer. I am pursuing this answer presently through some molecular biologists I know who work there. They too are having a hard time finding the answer.

Of course PCR tests should not be used for this in the first place. Even an actual positive means nothing without clinical diagnosis.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts