A possible reason for rises in cases and not in hospitalisations (aside from the inaccuracy of the tests as Kevin mentions) could be that if people are exposed to a lower "quantity" of the virus, as the virus becomes less novel to our immune systems, they are less likely to get super-ill. This is why I think lockdowns are not just pointless but actually dangerous, and we should stick with just social distancing and taking more care of the vulnerable, ie the over 75s. So crazy to still be closing primary schools for a disease of the aged.
Kary Mullis, the scientist who discovered this method stated explicitly that the test is far too inaccurate to be used for diagnosis. The results will always show positives even when there are none at all:
"PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but is unsuited for estimating numbers. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves."
Every day, without respite, for the last six months, and still the media dissects and magnifies every imaginable facet of a disease which is no more lethal than influenza.
A healthy child would be more likely to be struck by lightning than suffer from the virus. Would it not be wise to take precautions for the vulnerable and let everyone else carry on as normal?
A possible reason for rises in cases and not in hospitalisations (aside from the inaccuracy of the tests as Kevin mentions) could be that if people are exposed to a lower "quantity" of the virus, as the virus becomes less novel to our immune systems, they are less likely to get super-ill. This is why I think lockdowns are not just pointless but actually dangerous, and we should stick with just social distancing and taking more care of the vulnerable, ie the over 75s. So crazy to still be closing primary schools for a disease of the aged.
Kary Mullis, the scientist who discovered this method stated explicitly that the test is far too inaccurate to be used for diagnosis. The results will always show positives even when there are none at all:
"PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but is unsuited for estimating numbers. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves."
Every day, without respite, for the last six months, and still the media dissects and magnifies every imaginable facet of a disease which is no more lethal than influenza.
A healthy child would be more likely to be struck by lightning than suffer from the virus. Would it not be wise to take precautions for the vulnerable and let everyone else carry on as normal?