FTOF

The whole point of the RT- PCR technique is that it amplifies fragments of DNA . Coronavirus only has RNA which has to be "converted" into DNA, to allow these fragments to be "matched" with shorter strands of known DNA. So fragments of viral RNA are "picked up". However, you are correct that this method of testing does not seem detect past infections. I read up on it after watching the Yeadon video as I wasn't sure that I believed everything that he claimed. It seems that he may well be incorrect in stating that the test would pick up viral fragments from previous infections, which is surprising given his level of expertise in epidemiology. He also stated that the testing method was flawed because it was essentially a test used in forensics. However, it's quite clear that the technique has been adapted and used for years to detect viral diseases, the likes of Ebola and African swine fever, so it should certainly be fit for purpose to detect Covid. It's all here if you want an interesting read. How is the COVID-19 Virus Detected using Real Time RT-PCR? | IAEA

A notice of complaint is issued by the compliance officer.

He said "towards the Accies goal". Not that they actually got there.

Aberdeen 1 up.

Correct. The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks (nature.com)

A lot of good science in it, but a lot of "I think" and "I believe", often with out any reliable evidence to back up his opinions. However, I strongly suspect that some SAGE decisions have been based on unreliable data or possibly none at all, given the actions of the bumbling fuckwit recently. I've absolutely no doubt that some of Professor Yeadon's opinions will prove to be correct in time, but there are other epidemiologists out there with opposing views on some of the matters, who will be correct in their assertions too. What I did find particularly interesting was his views on the PCR test, regarding the detection of fragments of viral RNA from old infections and the throwing up of false positives. That could be artificially driving up positive test numbers just now, although like most things connected with this virus, there is a huge uncertainty on just what percentage of tests actually are positive. A lot of food for thought.

Looks like a great signing. Does the hard work in midfield breaking up play, makes good passes and scores the odd goal too. Sadly for us he'll probably be off to bigger and better things at the end of the season.

Caught a snippet of the Sheffield United game and witnessed McBurnie through on goal about 8 yards out. Easier to score than miss and he leathered it off the bar. I'm starting to feel sorry for him.

Anything on the internet that claims to be "Mind blowing" is, without exception, unadulterated shite.

It's next to his Stevie Mallan blow up doll.

Indeed. Won the ball, then deliberately tried to "do" Mason with the follow through. Worse than Shaughnessy's tackle v Ross county. Maybe if that bell end Collum had been the 4th official today, it might have been a red card.

Stryjek has played the last three games for them. The Livingston fans on P&B think he's a much better option than McCrorie.

Shoddy time keeping on my part. Hopefully a change of team news will bring us better fortune.🤞

"Gotten" Have received e-mails stating that, "they have "gotten better". Another example of vulgar Americanism becoming the norm. I am aware that the word was originally common in early English language, before it was replaced by "got" in the 1700's.

I'm regretting giving you that link now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55007122 They're on a roll.

Good to see in our time of crisis that we're getting our priorities right. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54988870 Fucking clown.

Looks like we're staying where we deserve to be.

Too fast for me Lot's of data here. https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/local

142 for the NHS area as a whole but SA was higher than NA at 172 although those figures will have changed a bit over the last couple of days. SA is not helped by the high number of nursing homes given it's a retirement hotspot. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877

They're generally about 95% grass.

Fairly inconclusive if either pitch causes more injuries than the other, as there are so many different factors. What does to be a factor in causing injury is a poorly maintained artificial pitch with lots of rubber pellets. The Livingston pitch has lots of rubber pellets as does Accies shitty effort. Anyway, artificial pitches are shit, and only a plum of the highest order would think otherwise. https://www.goal.com/en/news/do-artificial-football-pitches-cause-more-injuries-than/1prtyjo6rv5jh13jpf7fvb0jfz

That c**t S***s doing the draw. Home to Aberdeen

At least we're creating chances. You'd imagine that Griffiths or Shankland would have taken at least one of the chances.

As is our finishing so far.