Here's the article mentioned in the video:
It's an interesting read. I'd be really curious to know what the cutoff would be to detect a brand new infection however. Obviously the amount that you can pick up in a sample on day 1 of an infection is going to be a LOT less than on day 10. So if you're testing for that day one case you'll need a higher than normal sensitivity, but there appears to be a point in which the tests become meaningless.
This quote was perhaps the most interesting to me.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
However this raises a LOT of questions in my mind. The most obvious one is that if the number of infected is cut by upwards of 90% then the fatality rate would logically have to be recalculated as significantly higher. However, this also means the transmission rate is significantly lower. What is doubly interesting here is that according to antibody and T-Cell studies a significant portion of the population has already been infected. We do know that antibody tests will give false positives if people have had any form of coronavirus, but given this I have to wonder how much of what we are seeing is just self fulfilling prophecies.
If we have a number of relatively harmless corona viruses out there and one relatively dangerous one that has a lower transmission rate possibly due to natural immunity from the other less deadly forms then maybe we are just seeing a mountain of false positives and the reality is that much of the covid scare is just the same old covid that we've always dealt with, false positives and a sprinkling of the real deal thrown in.
It would explain a lot actually... Why so many people get it and have no symptoms (false positives or natural immunity), have weak symptoms (other strains of coronavirus such as the common cold), and then the very sick (COVID-19). It could also explain the disproportionate effects on the very elderly too as naturally weakening immune systems would mean that even if they had previously developed resistance due to lesser forms of the virus it wouldn't be as effective putting them at higher risk.
IDK, I'm just thinking as I type and rambling probably but so much data seems to be pointing in opposite directions at this point that I guess that's the only way I can make sense of it. COVID is real, but it's similar enough to other strains that many people are not hit hard and tests return a LOT of false positives. What are your thoughts?