No asymptomatic spread?
-
-
@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.
@axtremus said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@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.
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
“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
-
This claim is also not difficult to debunk at all. For people who test positive but are asymptomatic - all you need to do is check the viral load in their nasal cavities.
This has been done. It’s the same viral load as people with symptoms.
@xenon said in No asymptomatic spread?:
This claim is also not difficult to debunk at all. For people who test positive but are asymptomatic - all you need to do is check the viral load in their nasal cavities.
This has been done. It’s the same viral load as people with symptoms.
What about the Chinese study published in Nature?
-
@axtremus said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@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.
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that perhaps you too didn't go to the link and read the study either.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that perhaps you too didn't go to the link and read the study either.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that you didn't go to the link and read the study any more than I did.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
No, I read both studies.
Did you?
Besides, I've linked Lifesite before. Yes, they have an agenda, but not anymore than other sites that are linked here. Seeing how much interest I've generated, I think I'll link them more often.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that you didn't go to the link and read the study any more than I did.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
No, I read both studies.
Did you?
Besides, I've linked Lifesite before. Yes, they have an agenda, but not anymore than other sites that are linked here. Seeing how much interest I've generated, I think I'll link them more often.
-
No, I just read the article. That was enough for me to lose complete interest.
Say, how's that rebuttal to bach's post coming along?
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
No, I just read the article. That was enough for me to lose complete interest.
Say, how's that rebuttal to bach's post coming along?
What rebuttal would you like to hear?
Secondly, before you make a total ass out of yourself, why don't you go through the two studies and give a measured opinion?
-
We have been told that asymptomatic spread is common, accounting for a significant amount of COVID cases. Unless I interpret the numbers incorrectly, this is not true.
Asymptomatic cases account for a very small amount of COVID transmission. Miniscule, in the entire scheme of things.
Pre-symptomatic and symptomatic cases account for the vast number of transmissions. In the case if symptomatic cases, transmission being most likely in the early stages, when symptoms are mild, confused with other disease states and significant viral loads exist.
Even at that, open-air transmission is much, much less likely, than transmission in a closed space, particularly within one's own home. Good luck getting people to mask and sanitize in their own family home, though.
That's what I read.
As for the Lifesite website, it is admittedly biased, unlike the NYT, which claims it is not. I'll take admittedly biased, anyday. I like the site and will continue to link articles when I wish. As always, folks here are free to comment and discuss. I also find that sites like these also cover some things that do get ignored by MSM. Consider this:
They may be wrong in their theory that PEG caused the problem, but the problem exists. I told you about it here, before the MSM had a single story.
As for a saddle, I can still lay my hands on one. And since the object of the saddle is hard-mouthed, we'll need the right kind of bit and maybe a set of Mexican rowels. I don't need to put a knee in your ribs before tightening up the cinch, do I?
“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
-
We have been told that asymptomatic spread is common, accounting for a significant amount of COVID cases. Unless I interpret the numbers incorrectly, this is not true.
Asymptomatic cases account for a very small amount of COVID transmission. Miniscule, in the entire scheme of things.
Pre-symptomatic and symptomatic cases account for the vast number of transmissions. In the case if symptomatic cases, transmission being most likely in the early stages, when symptoms are mild, confused with other disease states and significant viral loads exist.
Even at that, open-air transmission is much, much less likely, than transmission in a closed space, particularly within one's own home. Good luck getting people to mask and sanitize in their own family home, though.
That's what I read.
As for the Lifesite website, it is admittedly biased, unlike the NYT, which claims it is not. I'll take admittedly biased, anyday. I like the site and will continue to link articles when I wish. As always, folks here are free to comment and discuss. I also find that sites like these also cover some things that do get ignored by MSM. Consider this:
They may be wrong in their theory that PEG caused the problem, but the problem exists. I told you about it here, before the MSM had a single story.
As for a saddle, I can still lay my hands on one. And since the object of the saddle is hard-mouthed, we'll need the right kind of bit and maybe a set of Mexican rowels. I don't need to put a knee in your ribs before tightening up the cinch, do I?
-
This is a fascinating thread. I didn't read any of the links, but following the conversation and arguments reveals so much about individual personalities, and how these are manifested in posts.
Maybe I'll take the time to click the links.
I wonder whether "asymptomatic" means breathing normally, where "symptomatic" specifically includes coughing, sneezing. It would seem obvious that coughing and sneezing would spread the virus much more than normal breathing, but is that specified in the data?
I think I will click the links and read. Nothing else to do. Probably stupid questions.
-
We have been told that asymptomatic spread is common, accounting for a significant amount of COVID cases. Unless I interpret the numbers incorrectly, this is not true.
Asymptomatic cases account for a very small amount of COVID transmission. Miniscule, in the entire scheme of things.
Pre-symptomatic and symptomatic cases account for the vast number of transmissions. In the case if symptomatic cases, transmission being most likely in the early stages, when symptoms are mild, confused with other disease states and significant viral loads exist.
Even at that, open-air transmission is much, much less likely, than transmission in a closed space, particularly within one's own home. Good luck getting people to mask and sanitize in their own family home, though.
That's what I read.
As for the Lifesite website, it is admittedly biased, unlike the NYT, which claims it is not. I'll take admittedly biased, anyday. I like the site and will continue to link articles when I wish. As always, folks here are free to comment and discuss. I also find that sites like these also cover some things that do get ignored by MSM. Consider this:
They may be wrong in their theory that PEG caused the problem, but the problem exists. I told you about it here, before the MSM had a single story.
As for a saddle, I can still lay my hands on one. And since the object of the saddle is hard-mouthed, we'll need the right kind of bit and maybe a set of Mexican rowels. I don't need to put a knee in your ribs before tightening up the cinch, do I?
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
As for the Lifesite website, it is admittedly biased, unlike the NYT, which claims it is not. I'll take admittedly biased, anyday. I like the site and will continue to link articles when I wish. As always, folks here are free to comment and discuss. I also find that sites like these also cover some things that do get ignored by MSM. Consider this:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fda-investigates-allergic-reactions-to-pfizer-covid-vaccine-after-more-healthcare-workers-hospitalized
They may be wrong in their theory that PEG caused the problem, but the problem exists. I told you about it here, before the MSM had a single story.MSM in Canada have been regularly reporting about potential and actual vaccine reactions since at least December 12 following warnings from Health Canada to that effect. Being that your site is based in Canada, I suspect it's just trying to stay as relevant as its slightly godless and listless centrist and wholly godless and lifeless leftist competitors to which I consult for my information.
