They boosted the gain on the PCR tests so much that they're picking up stray non-viable RNA fragments that may also be indicative that you had previously had the virus but are no longer contagious. And using that highly sensitive test as a standalone indication of whether or not you are infected instead of using it as one datapoint in an overall clinical assessment (which would include whether or not the patient is presenting symptoms).
Interesting discussion here. Each "cycle" being referred to is effectively boosting the gain of the test by a factor of 2. So when research suggests using a test with 25-30 cycles to assess disease, a test running at 40+ cycles is 1024-32768 times more sensitive.
Given that Trump has probably been subject to a constant regime of testing that eliminates the possibility of him having had and recovered from Covid-19 undetected, a highly sensitive test just means catching the virus' presence in the pre-clinical stage and allowing treatments to be started sooner. In a high risk, high importance patient I see nothing wrong with using a test that can pick up small amounts of viral RNA that can very likely develop into a full-blown infection and get a headstart.
Also, I find it incredibly hard to take the claims of some junk-tier blog that host such literary gems as "face diapers" and a pathological phobia of needles over the data I've actually seen reported by people at least in the business of healthcare, not auto-sales, showing that most tests carried out are still negative.
They boosted the gain on the PCR tests so much that they're picking up stray non-viable RNA fragments that may also be indicative that you had previously had the virus but are no longer contagious. And using that highly sensitive test as a standalone indication of whether or not you are infected instead of using it as one datapoint in an overall clinical assessment (which would include whether or not the patient is presenting symptoms).
Interesting discussion here. Each "cycle" being referred to is effectively boosting the gain of the test by a factor of 2. So when research suggests using a test with 25-30 cycles to assess disease, a test running at 40+ cycles is 1024-32768 times more sensitive.
Given that Trump has probably been subject to a constant regime of testing that eliminates the possibility of him having had and recovered from Covid-19 undetected, a highly sensitive test just means catching the virus' presence in the pre-clinical stage and allowing treatments to be started sooner. In a high risk, high importance patient I see nothing wrong with using a test that can pick up small amounts of viral RNA that can very likely develop into a full-blown infection and get a headstart.
Also, I find it incredibly hard to take the claims of some junk-tier blog that host such literary gems as "face diapers" and a pathological phobia of needles over the data I've actually seen reported by people at least in the business of healthcare, not auto-sales, showing that most tests carried out are still negative.