A few good points (like the PCR detecting only RNA which does not equate to live virus) in a sea of "interesting" spin about the current data.

I really don't understand why it's "us vs them" in either camp ("doom and gloom" and "skeptics"). This makes things worse, since both camps tend to quote only evidence which support their respective claim (two examples: the Guardian saying that asymptomatic people spread more virus than the symptomatic ones, despite the study they quote saying that it can't be said, because they did not check for live virus; and some web page called "Swiss policy research" which quotes only the parts of the studies which conform to the "skeptical" narrative).