Uh, huh. I was wondering why google couldn't find it.
However, google did find this:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/cor...0200714-va2fuxgcsbfc5dsuba5gcni2u4-story.html
- which seems to say that those small labs that the thing that @pertnear09 linked to claims were reporting 100% positive tests were only reporting the positives, and were giving incomplete data (not telling how many total tests were done, how many were repeat tests, etc). That could definitely skew the percentages (if only slightly, given the relatively small number of tests those particular labs were doing), but that's human error, not faulty materials.
However, google did find this:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/cor...0200714-va2fuxgcsbfc5dsuba5gcni2u4-story.html
- which seems to say that those small labs that the thing that @pertnear09 linked to claims were reporting 100% positive tests were only reporting the positives, and were giving incomplete data (not telling how many total tests were done, how many were repeat tests, etc). That could definitely skew the percentages (if only slightly, given the relatively small number of tests those particular labs were doing), but that's human error, not faulty materials.
Last edited: