There is no evidence for that @Royhobbs. That ratio was pretty-well established by serological testing early on, and absent something changing in the virus itself, which would be detected by RNA sequencing, there's utterly no science behind declaring "and then someone waved a magic wand."

Since every survey of pre-existing T-cell recognition has come in within a decent confidence band (~30-50%, although in Europe there have been some that have been higher) as well if you take the lower end you're giving the math all the help it deserves -- and you still end up wildly off the top of the suppression range.

That has only one reasonable hypothesis left -- a HUGE percentage of the alleged "positives" aren't. This is trivially provable one way or another by the government too by finger-sticking everyone 2 weeks after they call them positive. That's $2 on top of the $100 the PCR test runs, so for 2% you get an absolutely iron-clad and scientifically-defensible accuracy check on your tests.

They're not doing it.

Gee, what REASONABLE explanation is there for that given that even Fauci says that only 3% of the positives at Ct35 can be cultured and thus are infectious -- and yet all the labs are running either 40 or even 45 cycles?

----------