No asymptomatic spread?
-
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?
-
wrote on 1 Jan 2021, 23:32 last edited by
The results in the study are a bit surprising. That said - the study isn’t about looking at asymptomatic spread and is rather more about the effectiveness of mass lockdowns.
-
wrote on 1 Jan 2021, 23:45 last edited by
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?
wrote on 2 Jan 2021, 18:01 last edited by Renauda 1 Feb 2021, 18:17@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.