Reply With Quote
Yea, then he contracted COVID-19 while in the hospital.
He had pneumonia first and later contracted COVID-19, dip .
Then a positive one. False negatives results are not uncommon. You should know this by now. His pneumonia was caused by COVID-19.
Yea, then he contracted COVID-19 while in the hospital.
He had pneumonia first and later contracted COVID-19, dip .
No. He had COVID-19 the entire time. He had two false negative results.
You think false negatives are that prevalent?
Early research indicates that a common test for COVID-19 may produce “false negatives” up to 30 percent of the time.
https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...u-have-illness
Do you understand?
Yes or no.
presumptive positives are prevalent and 2nd tier testing applies another filter. False negatives are rare, else the tests are worthless and even dangerous.
That doesn't help Chump's convenient contention.
He tested positive after two negative tests.
Is that possible that the first two tests were false negatives, in your opinion?
Yes or no.
I understand that you're using unreliable sources to support your narrative.
Preliminary research from China that is yet to be peer reviewed suggests the most common form of COVID-19 test produces “false negatives” up to 30 percent of the time.
It doesn't make it impossible especially early on in testing when the accuracy is questionable.
Of course it's possible. He's in a hospital full of Covid patients, numb nuts.
Now is it very possible that a guy would have such a severe COVID case and test negative not once but then twice?
I'm not a virologist; but my understanding of tests, is that they're generally much more reliable than that, as DMC just told you.
I'd accept quibbles with the percentage.
Do you think all the current COVID-19 tests are 100% accurate?
Yes or no.
That's not the issue at all. Don't pretend it is.
How reliable? What's the percentage of false positives or negatives for each type?
Cutting out bits for narratives. Desperation time.
I'll take that as a no.
You'd have to ask how anyone knows a false negative isn't a true negative. That's the problem with false negatives - they aren't retested. You don't take 100 samples and get 88 negatives then retest them all over and over. It's not feasible. You have controls and calibrators to verify the integrity of the test then you rely on a calibration curve. If that results in false negatives, your method is really ed.
See above. I knew you'd whine.
A guy with that severe of a case testing negative twice? Hard for me to see it; but I'm not a doctor like you Doctor David.
I certainly wouldn't push your bull narrative that that's the most likely event.
If the testing is this shaky, then it's certainly not being broadcast in the mainstream media. You being gaslighted, ChumpDumper?
Easy for me to see it because that's what happened.
You don't know that that happened. Are you saying that pneumonia or some other un-diagnosed symptom couldn't have caused the amputation, Doctor David?
It's been in the mainstream media for weeks.
Sure I do. It's right there in the article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
