What's the reliability of this? The PCR sequencing techniques multiply false positives. There's also needs to be a random sample in order to be valid.
You should write a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine with your suggestions.
If you're really interested, you could look up this: Mio C, Cifù A, Marzinotto S, Marcon B, Pipan C, Damante G, et al. Validation of a One-Step Reverse Transcription-Droplet Digital PCR (RT-ddPCR) Approach to Detect and Quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Nasopharyngeal Swabs. Disease Markers. 2021;2021: e8890221. doi: 10.1155/2021/8890221
or this: 10. Mio C, Cifù A, Marzinotto S, Bergamin N, Caldana C, Cattarossi S, et al. A Streamlined Approach to Rapidly Detect SARS-CoV-2 Infection Avoiding RNA Extraction: Workflow Validation. Dis Markers. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/8869424
or this: 13. Washington NL, Gangavarapu K, Zeller M, Bolze A, Cirulli ET, Barrett KMS, et al. Genomic epidemiology identifies emergence and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 in the United States. medRxiv. 2021 [cited 11 Apr 2021]. doi: 10.1101/2021.02.06.21251159
or this: 14. Lo Menzo S, Marinello S, Biasin M, Terregino C, Franchin E, Crisanti A, et al. The first familial cluster of the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in the northeast of Italy. Infection. 2021; 1-5. doi: 10.1007/s15010-021-01609-6
It's all cited in the study itself, because that's what science does.
I find it hard to believe that we know the variant with reliability
You're just naysaying the science. And that was just one study and there have been literally hundreds of studies.
I think the idea of variant is just random mutation and they've fit the data to it.
You're looking for ways out to protect your cherished and firmly held dogma.
For example, more vulnerable population getting sick first so this must be a different variant even though the sampling was insufficient to determine such.
Was it insufficient though? What makes you think so? To think they can't fully sequence this virus is another ridiculous position.
Where are your studies?
What's the reliability of this? The PCR sequencing techniques multiply false positives. There's also needs to be a random sample in order to be valid.
You should write a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine with your suggestions.
If you're really interested, you could look up this: Mio C, Cifù A, Marzinotto S, Marcon B, Pipan C, Damante G, et al. Validation of a One-Step Reverse Transcription-Droplet Digital PCR (RT-ddPCR) Approach to Detect and Quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Nasopharyngeal Swabs. Disease Markers. 2021;2021: e8890221. doi: 10.1155/2021/8890221
I find it hard to believe that we know the variant with reliability
You're just naysaying the science. And that was just one study and there have been literally hundreds of studies.
I think the idea of variant is just random mutation and they've fit the data to it.
You're looking for ways out to protect your cherished and firmly held dogma.
For example, more vulnerable population getting sick first so this must be a different variant even though the sampling was insufficient to determine such.
Was it insufficient though? What makes you think so? To think they can't fully sequence this virus is another ridiculous position.
Where are your studies?