News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cambridge Analytica psychologist advising Covid19 disinfo... by _ph_ on Saturday February 06, 2021 @08:38AM (#26046402)
From my understanding, the "amplification cycly threshold" is a number which depends on the specific PCR test. So every lab has somewhat different numbers applying to their testing method. Consequently, there is no single number for this the government could publish. And without an analysis of that specific lab, the number isn't meaningful at all. Publishing it would actually be very harmful as it is so meaningless.
Re:Cambridge Analytica psychologist advising Covid19 disinfo... by herewegoagain2 on Saturday February 06, 2021 @12:55PM (#26048344)
So individual labs can set their own standards for detecting an infection? Isn't that rather support for the skeptic's viewpoint? So there actually is no standard, just labs claiming things?
Re:Cambridge Analytica psychologist advising Covid19 disinfo... by _ph_ on Saturday February 06, 2021 @03:29PM (#26049656)
It is not setting individual standards, but about calibration of the process. Each piece of measurement equipment needs to be calibrated.