Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

Re:Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemplo... by MiroF on Saturday January 01, 2022 @10:42AM (#29759364)

> maybe PCR tests cranked to an absurd number of cycles

c'mon, you're at least a year behind the conspiracy theory state of the art, we're on vaccine infertility now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemplo... by mardifoufs on Saturday January 01, 2022 @02:41PM (#29761874)

I guess you should email the NYT and ask them to stop peddling conspiracy theories:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemplo... by MiroF on Saturday January 01, 2022 @04:49PM (#29763205)

> Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

I'm a bit confused by this article. AFAIK PCR tests are only reporting a positive at 35 cycles. The author of the article is correct that it is run for 40 cycles often, but this is only because a positive between 36-40 cycles indicates "unclear result" and the test is repeated with a different assay targeting a different component of the virus. Positive is only reported at 35 cycles max.

This should not pick up any "dead cells", it will pick up viral mRNA. There is a concern over picking up low loads, but the mRNA is still there.

[ Parent | on HN ]