Viral testing is not very reliable, and some of it is subjective.

Chris Martinson described testing in one of his many vids about covid. As I understood it. They take a sample and then make any virus there replicate itself resulting in twice as many as there were before. Then they do it again and double it again. They repeat the process and begin testing for the virus at some point between doublings. The number of times they have to do the doubling before detection is made is an important factor. If doubling (they have the proper medical term) is only requried about 10 times, then it indicates a very high viral load in the subject, a full infection that is very contagious. But the more times they have to replicate the stuff before detecting, the less severe it is. If they have to go up above about 35, it means any positive result after that shouldn't even be considered even infected, much less sick or even contagious.

Don't know the details but asking for that number with any positive result with that type of test is, Martinson said, important.

I'm rough on the details, and all of that is what I got only from Martinson and no where else, so your mileage may vary. If you want something authoritative, ask someone who knows the answer instead of me.

How's that for a helpful answer?

Prolly just her body reacting to that fish-hook in her mouth.

The guy who invented the test said it was never intended to be used in this manner. It doesn't measure the quantity of the virus/viral load which is critical in determining if you can transmit the virus --- and also critical is deciding if you should be locked in your house. It detects all corona viruses, colds/flu, and they say it's corona, when it's not. All influenza is now corona.