The official narrative is that if we weren't testing everyone all the time (and wearing masks and all the other crap) then we would be in the middle of a pandemic with hundreds of thousands of deaths.

This is pretty obviously nonsense.

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.

It sounds on first reading like they're saying bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses might cause the positive test. But they aren't, and it won't-- it's just that if you have a SARS2 infection you might also have some other infection, and it might be the other one that's making you ill.

.....well, I find the CDC statement to be quite ambiguous, and possibly made intentionally so for legalistic reasons. The use of the term "indicative" implies possibility of infection by SARS2, but that's not an absolute, as the test itself is fraught with imperfections and is not binary. The statement is not clear whether the test is actually detecting the virus or merely the results of prior infection which could also have been caused by "bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses".

"The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."
What agent is this referring to, SARS2, the bacterial infection or some other possible viruses? Once again vague. If the positive test results could be the result of a compounding with bacteria and/or other viruses, then this needs to be clarified.

The fact that governments and the MSM are erroneously reporting dubious test results as if they are definite positive infections is a great concern.

Here are two audio interviews conducted by David Crowe with Professor Stephen Bustin on the pitfalls of the RT-PCT test - they are rather technical:

https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-stephen-bustin-on-challenges-with-rt-pcr/
https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-simplifying-rt-pcr/

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of any virus, as it has it not been put through an isolating purification process and undergoing the usual Golden Standard of rigorous scientific evaluation/validation.

I can recommend reading Dr. Stefan Lanka's article (translated from German) on COVID-19:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/wissenschafftplus-fehldeutung-virus-teil-2.de_.en_.pdf?fbclid=IwAR39gzTL9tjoq365ttsJYcRSypz_Njv1YydlohQUN2no4FTyOtbChe4BNpU

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.

It sounds on first reading like they're saying bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses might cause the positive test. But they aren't, and it won't-- it's just that if you have a SARS2 infection you might also have some other infection, and it might be the other one that's making you ill.

.....well, I find the CDC statement to be quite ambiguous, and possibly made intentionally so for legalistic reasons. The use of the term "indicative" implies possibility of infection by SARS2, but that's not an absolute, as the test itself is fraught with imperfections and is not binary. The statement is not clear whether the test is actually detecting the virus or merely the results of prior infection which could also have been caused by "bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses".

"The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."
What agent is this referring to, SARS2, the bacterial infection or some other possible viruses? Once again vague. If the positive test results could be the result of a compounding with bacteria and/or other viruses, then this needs to be clarified.

The fact that governments and the MSM are erroneously reporting dubious test results as if they are definite positive infections is a great concern.

Here are two audio interviews conducted by David Crowe with Professor Stephen Bustin on the pitfalls of the RT-PCT test - they are rather technical:

https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-stephen-bustin-on-challenges-with-rt-pcr/
https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-simplifying-rt-pcr/

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of any virus, as it has it not been put through an isolating purification process and undergoing the usual Golden Standard of rigorous scientific evaluation/validation.

I can recommend reading Dr. Stefan Lanka's article (translated from German) on COVID-19:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/wissenschafftplus-fehldeutung-virus-teil-2.de_.en_.pdf?fbclid=IwAR39gzTL9tjoq365ttsJYcRSypz_Njv1YydlohQUN2no4FTyOtbChe4BNpU

If coronavirus is such a dangerous disease which produces severe symptoms why is it necessary to rely on tests where it is uncertain how reliable the test is to find coronavirus cases.

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of any virus, as it has it not been put through an isolating purification process and undergoing the usual Golden Standard of rigorous scientific evaluation/validation.

I can recommend reading Dr. Stefan Lanka's article (translated from German) on COVID-19:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/wissenschafftplus-fehldeutung-virus-teil-2.de_.en_.pdf?fbclid=IwAR39gzTL9tjoq365ttsJYcRSypz_Njv1YydlohQUN2no4FTyOtbChe4BNpU

Although some of this skepticism was justified earlier on I think it's now extremely unlikely that there is no such thing as SARS-CoV-2 or that it doesn't cause COVID-19 (well, it causes COVID-19 by definition, but I don't think there is any doubt that COVID-19 is a disease with symptoms ranging from nothing through a mild cold to a viral pneumonia with some blood clotting issues thrown in).

Here is a nice album of electron microscope picture of the actual coronavirus particles, which have been isolated and cultured in human cells:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/49645120251/in/album-72157712914621487

As for the Koch postulates, mice and monkeys have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a part of early vaccine trials and they developed fever, pneumonia, etc.

Of course when looking at an individual patient a doctor always has to keep an open mind-- there may be superinfections, other reasons for the symptoms, etc.-- but this is nearly always the case with any disease.

OK thought I'd just add a quick update on test result interpretation.

According to the latest ONS data, about 10% people who have Covid symptoms (cough, fever, etc.) are actually positive for SARS2. Incidentally this is a good indication of the extent of herd immunity to Covid-- if the only reason more people aren't getting it is lockdowns/masks/restrictions, how are people catching 9x as many different viruses?

In the general population, symptomatic or not, about 0.05% are testing positive for Covid.

A reasonable assumption of the accuracy of Pillar 2 tests is that they are 99.5% specific and 70% sensitive. It would be much easier to estimate if they told us what ratio of positives are asymptomatic but I can't find this information anywhere.

So under these assumptions, the probability of having a real SARS2 infection if you test positive in Pillar 2 is only 6.55%, and 0.02% if you test negative.

Given that Pillar 2 is finding about 600 positives out of an estimated 3000 new infections per day, I would estimate that they are finding about 1.3% of the actual infections in the country.

But if you have symptoms the prior probability of having a real SARS2 infection goes up from 0.05% to 10%. Therefore the probability of having SARS2 if you test positive with the same test, and also have symptoms, is 94% (and 3.24% even if you test negative).

In fact if the prevalence is about half that 0.05%, and the sensitivity 60% (which they easily might be) you'd be more likely to have SARS2 if you had symptoms but tested negative than if you didn't have symptoms but tested positive!

As it is, already if you have symptoms and don't even have a test, you have about a 10% chance of being infected with SARS2, higher than the 6.55% chance of having it if you tested positive but had no symptoms. In other words, presence of symptoms is already a better test on its own for SARS2 than the actual test.

If you don't have symptoms don't worry, you probably don't have Covid (even if you test positive) and aren't very infectious either. If you do, never mind that it's a 90% chance it's some other cold, get plenty of rest and try not to infect anyone. If your condition worsens, the doctor can do a PCR test and confirm (with 94% accuracy or better, as she probably has a better test, but that doesn't matter, the 99.5% specific test will be fine) whether it's likely Covid to decide on treatment.