Dunno why he's being disingenuous

The government haven't been tracking numbers of false positives, no.

However - the testing were using is highly accurate (% in the high 90s)

If we were talking about false negatives it'd be more tricky.

He's trying to argue that because there are false positives (inevitably some, down to fragments of spent infections, or possibly contamination) that none of the data is accurate or useful.

That is bollocks.

Posted By: Cardiff Canary, Nov 9, 11:58:35