No asymptomatic spread?
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Anything published in Lifesite News makes little or no sense. It's a bogus organization sponsored by Christian nutbars.
Link to the study within the article.
I won't bother, thank you.
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Anything published in Lifesite News makes little or no sense. It's a bogus organization sponsored by Christian nutbars.
Link to the study within the article.
I won't bother, thank you.
Then remain ignorant, fool.
You just have a burr up your ass, because the article is from a Christian website. What the article is addressing, is the concept of asymptomatic disease transmission. IIRC, the article references the study published in Nature, which is peer reviewed. But it may be referencing the new data metastudy, which was done by the guys down at University of Florida, and published on JAMA's open study site. All this riffs off of a previous idea raised by WHO last summer.
The reason for the thread starter, is to give you something to think about and an ability to look at their data, drawing your own conclusions.
Closed minds make for lousy science.
-
jolly direct question to you.
what do you believe, that there is no asymptomatic spread? as someone with health care experience, you have actually been quite vociferous about the potential dangers of covid, yet you post this stuff from life site news as if you actually believe it?
so what the final word, what do you personally think? is there asymptomatic spread?
if you need another study, try this one from the proceedings of the national academy of science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7395516/
"Specifically, if 17.9% of infections are asymptomatic (5), we found that the presymptomatic stage and asymptomatic infections account for 48% and 3.4% of transmission, respectively"
that would mean 50% of transmissions come from people without symptoms.
if you ask me the same question, ill tell you what I think.
youre damn right there are asymptomatic transmissions and only a masochist or a fool would choose to act as if it was otherwise.
@bachophile said in No asymptomatic spread?:
jolly direct question to you.
what do you believe, that there is no asymptomatic spread? as someone with health care experience, you have actually been quite vociferous about the potential dangers of covid, yet you post this stuff from life site news as if you actually believe it?
so what the final word, what do you personally think? is there asymptomatic spread?
if you need another study, try this one from the proceedings of the national academy of science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7395516/
"Specifically, if 17.9% of infections are asymptomatic (5), we found that the presymptomatic stage and asymptomatic infections account for 48% and 3.4% of transmission, respectively"
that would mean 50% of transmissions come from people without symptoms.
if you ask me the same question, ill tell you what I think.
youre damn right there are asymptomatic transmissions and only a masochist or a fool would choose to act as if it was otherwise.
Did I say there was no asymptomatic spread? Even the guys at the UF study admit their data was not set up to adequately analyze asymptomatic spread, they just noted the anomaly. Furthermore, the UF study was concentrated on spread between members of the same household, not spread in the general public.
The data us interesting, though, and should be looked at.
So get your panties out of a wad, doc.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Elbows up!
-
and now ill take you to task for the content of the nature article vs what the "Christian webiste" says....
the CW implies from the nature article that "thus undermining the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people."
of course the nature article implies the exact opposite. the nature article's main premise is that the lockdown in wuhan was so efficient that after it was opened up, in a check of 10,000,000 million residents, only 300 asymptomatic infected patients were discovered.
the study is about mass screening following lockdowns (which are considered essential ) and how it can impact the health regulators decisions on further planning.
so you see, the so called CW did a very unchristian thing in taking a well researched and referenced paper in a high impact journal and purposely twisting the data to give an opposite impression.
you trust in the scriptures as a strong evangelical believer?
i would think the authors of that website should reread Exodus 20:16 (you know im an OT type of guy...)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness..."
-
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Interesting site.
It puts Reuters, the FT, and The Economist under 'least biased'. WaPo/NYT Left Center, WSJ Right Center, MSNBC Left, Fox News Right.
Seems reasonable.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@bachophile said in No asymptomatic spread?:
jolly direct question to you.
what do you believe, that there is no asymptomatic spread? as someone with health care experience, you have actually been quite vociferous about the potential dangers of covid, yet you post this stuff from life site news as if you actually believe it?
so what the final word, what do you personally think? is there asymptomatic spread?
if you need another study, try this one from the proceedings of the national academy of science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7395516/
"Specifically, if 17.9% of infections are asymptomatic (5), we found that the presymptomatic stage and asymptomatic infections account for 48% and 3.4% of transmission, respectively"
that would mean 50% of transmissions come from people without symptoms.
if you ask me the same question, ill tell you what I think.
youre damn right there are asymptomatic transmissions and only a masochist or a fool would choose to act as if it was otherwise.
Did I say there was no asymptomatic spread? Even the guys at the UF study admit their data was not set up to adequately analyze asymptomatic spread, they just noted the anomaly. Furthermore, the UF study was concentrated on spread between members of the same household, not spread in the general public.
The data us interesting, though, and should be looked at.
So get your panties out of a wad, doc.
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
if you need another study, try this one from the proceedings of the national academy of science
So get your panties out of a wad, doc.
while im removing my wadded panties, im also checking the JAMA meta analysis
again, you misread the point of the study.
this meta analysis (a meta analysis tries to pool data from other studies, which because of heterogeneousness, can cause problems of interpretation, but be that as it may..) of 54 studies looks at factors in specifically household transmission, as opposed to community transmission.
among the factors it notes, symptomatic transmission is more prevalent than asymptomatic transmission. well,duh....no one thinks otherwise, very long way from saying "Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all" as the CW headline shouts.
in other words, again i say
Thou shall not bear false witness.....
and now my panties are finally folded and put away neatly
PS the false witness is directed at the CW site of course, not you personally
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
if you need another study, try this one from the proceedings of the national academy of science
So get your panties out of a wad, doc.
while im removing my wadded panties, im also checking the JAMA meta analysis
again, you misread the point of the study.
this meta analysis (a meta analysis tries to pool data from other studies, which because of heterogeneousness, can cause problems of interpretation, but be that as it may..) of 54 studies looks at factors in specifically household transmission, as opposed to community transmission.
among the factors it notes, symptomatic transmission is more prevalent than asymptomatic transmission. well,duh....no one thinks otherwise, very long way from saying "Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all" as the CW headline shouts.
in other words, again i say
Thou shall not bear false witness.....
and now my panties are finally folded and put away neatly
PS the false witness is directed at the CW site of course, not you personally
@bachophile said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
if you need another study, try this one from the proceedings of the national academy of science
So get your panties out of a wad, doc.
while im removing my wadded panties, im also checking the JAMA meta analysis
again, you misread the point of the study.
this meta analysis (a meta analysis tries to pool data from other studies, which because of heterogeneousness, can cause problems of interpretation, but be that as it may..) of 54 studies looks at factors in specifically household transmission, as opposed to community transmission.
among the factors it notes, symptomatic transmission is more prevalent than asymptomatic transmission. well,duh....no one thinks otherwise, very long way from saying "Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all" as the CW headline shouts.
in other words, again i say
Thou shall not bear false witness.....
and now my panties are finally folded and put away neatly
PS the false witness is directed at the CW site of course, not you personally
Read what I said about the Florida study.
-
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
@jolly the web site deserves attack
They purposely misrepresent in the name of ideological nonsense.
That’s evil
-
Interesting site.
It puts Reuters, the FT, and The Economist under 'least biased'. WaPo/NYT Left Center, WSJ Right Center, MSNBC Left, Fox News Right.
Seems reasonable.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking the website. However, bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking the website. However, bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking it however bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
Once again, you're attacking the website, without saying a word about the studies. Is that willful ignorance or just snobbery? The studies referenced are not religious in any way.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking it however bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
Once again, you're attacking the website, without saying a word about the studies. Is that willful ignorance or just snobbery? The studies referenced are not religious in any way.
-
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
Then you are as much of a fruitcake as anything you accuse them if being. You may not like Christianity, or you can despise the views of a website that promotes human life. But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
That's the bottom line.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
Then you are as much of a fruitcake as anything you accuse them if being. You may not like Christianity, or you can despise the views of a website that promotes human life. But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
That's the bottom line.
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
It’s easy: next time you want people to focus on the data or the underlying study, just post that study.
Unless you actually want people to read that website’s (mis)interpretation of the data, why link to that website at all? Just link straight to the data from the get go and you would not need to tell people to review the data like you do now.
-
There are viable vaccines now for covid
covid has lost
it's all over
it is just a matter of time to distribute the vaccine
Is it treasonous for people to still say that covid is deadly?
Or should we wait for the process run it's course?
@copper actually it’s not over.
If the vaccine rollout is not keeping pace with infections many many more people are going to die in 2021
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
Then you are as much of a fruitcake as anything you accuse them if being. You may not like Christianity, or you can despise the views of a website that promotes human life. But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
That's the bottom line.
-
I think the point is that the article originally posted is willfully misleading and potentially very dangerous.
Enough people have died of this awful disease already without more misinformation being spread. These so-called Christians should be ashamed of themselves.
