NYT reported three different studies showing that 50-90% of people tested with pcr barely had any virus and were not contagious.
This type of result I would call "false positive" IN THE SENSE that these people were not sick with Covid, they didn't have the disease (not currently or perhaps never). They were not "new cases" and were not infectious.
It was one study that used 3 sets of testing data.. and yes it showed 50-90% of those tested were not likely to be contagious. They may or may not have been symptomatic when they were tested.. we don't know that part. We know they had the virus in their bodies, so from an epidemiological perspective they were infected at some point.
You've said that you don't like calling these all "new cases" because you think it's too alarming. What should we call them? We can't call them "new positives" because that wouldn't adequately separate out those who are being tested multiple times (and testing positive more than once). We definitely can't call them false positives.. that is a term reserved for when there is an error in the test (when the virus is not actually in the body, but the test says it is). "Cases" seems appropriate.
On another subject, we need to remember that Redfield estimated 30-60 million people in US have already contracted Covid. If 60 million people, then that would be one in five people in US. When we go out (grocery store, etc.), we are probably around several people who have already been exposed to Covid - we ourselves may have unknowingly - and are an immune protective barrier. It appears that the narrative being pushed is that everyone is still a threat to everyone, but there is evidence that this is not the case.
The evidence comes from testing and other related data. When "new cases" rise, that is a sign that the virus is becoming more ubiquitous (of course there are other factors to consider).
How contagious the virus is (the R0 value) is getting reconfigured constantly by very smart people (who I'm sure are doing the best they can). It's always going to be different for different areas, but aquired immunity plays a role as do individual and societal behaviors.
Redfield's comment was: “I think if you’re going to do a crude estimate, somewhere between 30 and 60 million people, but let’s let the data come out and see what it shows.”
...so yeah this comment was not meant to inform on whether cases will rise or fall. We have data for that.
"Epidemic Maestro Dr Johan Giesecke schools the Irish Parliament:
"he recommends that the virus be let spread through the population alongside a programme that concentrates on the “old and frail” and that frequently tests staff and residents in care facilities
I won't say he's wrong, but most epidemiologists are saying that if the virus is allowed to spread through the population, it will inevitably make it to those who are of high risk.. so I don't think they could be protected in this scenario, even with a "programme" such as the one he suggested. Then there's the long hauler problem...