> Are they all false? Don't know. There's hope, but not yet evidence, so far as I know.

You mean there's evidence but not proof.

What evidence are you using to show people have recovered who are still testing positive? What confirms that the positive test is false?

Can you provide some sources?

Is this a joke? Literally the article at the top.

No, not a joke, you seemed to be talking from a general perspective rather than "in the results in this particular PCR test in South Korea". As if you had generally applicable information.

My understanding was there were many different tests being used ... so on what basis are you making that generalised statement.

> When you recover from it, you don't still have it, even if you test positive. //

A plausible explanation for specific tests doesn't make this a universal truth; so presumably you are relying on more information? Also, there being an explanation for positive tests based on dead virus, doesn't mean all post-infection positive tests are due to dead virus; that's a massive assumption.

He is right, people may be testing positive just because of dead virus fragments, but to say they have fully recovered there must be no virus alive in their bodies - lack of symptoms may suggest it, then having antibodies may guarantee that eventually..

.. assuming the virus can not hide (and be able to leave) where they can't penetrate - like in the eye ?

.. and with weak immune system the outcome may be (how?)long undecided as the antibodies are not being able to fight the virus fast enough to finish it definitely?