Commenter Paso Robles brought us a very interesting case, a ruling November 11 by a Portuguese appeals that the RT-PCR test is not a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2, so that all quarantines based on those test results are unlawful. The original ruling was, of course, in Portuguese, and found here. Paso also made a Google English translation version available here. Finally, Off Guardian did a short summary of the ruling here. I read, copied and printed the entire ruling. It turned out to be 13,000 words and 34 pages (MS Word). While that sounds like a lot, it read so easily that I was enthralled. Legal minds are, I think, the best minds around. I love the way they convert law to understandable prose.
The ruling involved four German national tourists who went to the Azores, where one of them tested positive for SARS-CoV-19 9 9after testing negative in Germany). All four were quarantined in their hotel rooms for fourteen days. But these guys were not to be messed with. They petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus, i.e., produce a body, a right we all possess if we live in lands with laws that are followed. (Not so much USA anymore.) It prevents detention of people without due process. I had forgotten all about it, but if I am quarantined, you can bet I am going to invoke it.
There is, of course, a world-wide news blackout of this ruling.
The ruling referred to this study at Oxford Academic by Jafaar at al which found that if the number of amplifications in a PCR test exceeds 25, the test is not reliable. Over 30, reliability is reduced to 20%, and over 35, 3%. We are told that the testing laboratories are secretive about the number of amps they are using, but this is information we need to have. In fact, amplifications were unavailable to the Portuguese court, one of the reasons why the quarantines were overruled.
Here are the last paragraphs of the court ruling, I think quoting from Jafaar at the opening:
“Any diagnostic test should be interpreted in the context of the actual possibility of the disease, existing before its realization . For Covid-19, this decision to perform the test depends on previous assessment of the existence of symptoms, previous medical history of Covid 19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to this disease and no likelihood of another possible diagnosis. ”  “ One of the potential reasons for presenting positive results may be the prolonged shedding of viral RNA, which is known to extend for weeks after recovery, in those who were previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, and more relevantly, there are no scientific data to suggest that low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equate to infection, unless the presence of infectious viral particles has been confirmed by laboratory culture methods .
In summary, Covid-19 tests that show false positives are increasingly likely, in the current epidemiological climate panorama in the United Kingdom, with substantial personal, health and social system consequences . ” 
18. Thus, with so many scientific doubts expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of their performance and having no diagnosis made by a doctor, in the sense of the existence of infection and risk, it would never be possible for this court to determine that AH___ had the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that SH__SWH__ and NK_ had had high risk exposure.
19.In summary, it will be said that, since the appeal is inadmissible, due to lack of legitimacy and lack of interest in acting by the applicant, as well as manifestly unfounded, it will have to be rejected, under the terms of the in articles 401 nº1 al. a), 417 nº6 al. b) and artº420 nº1 als. a) and b), all of the Penal CP. iv – decision. In view of the above, and under the provisions of articles 417, paragraph 6, al. b) and 420 nº1 als. a) and b), both of the Penal Procedure Code, the appeal filed by the REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, represented by the Regional Directorate of Health of the Autonomous Region of the Azores , is rejected.
This is very good news, indeed, so please spread it far and wide. You know it’s not going to turn up on TV or in newspapers, or even on Democracy Now!