An incredibly interesting article regarding asymptomatic transmission

[Redbrickwall]

www.aier.org/article/asymptomatic-spread-revisited/

It has been shared by several well known medics.

It blew my mind a bit

That was very interesting and definitely something that people should read regardless of their views.

That's not an argument, just a poorly put together set of sentences to justify his own neoliberal position of let the weak die.

"several well known medics" - I call bullshit.

Thanks for sharing that OP. You have improved my evening.

Maybe they are well know in other countries, I have no idea.
I still found it interesting so that I can see someone else’s views. Shockingly lot’s of people have all sorts of different views and should not be mocked.

I remember the WHO saying this about asymptomatic spread and then also heard it being discussed again on a radio discussion a few weeks ago, they were saying again how asymptomatic spread was unlikely

It's an economic research group. That promotes views thst financially benefit it's members.

Likes to discredit climate change science and promote the economic advantages of sweatshops.

According to Wiki.

Nice people then.

I thought what was more of a problem was people being contagious when they are pre-symptomatic for a couple of days before they develop symptoms.

This is from WHO’s website.

Laboratory data suggests that infected people appear to be most infectious just before they develop symptoms (namely 2 days before they develop symptoms) and early in their illness. People who develop severe disease can be infectious for longer.

Surely that’s the reason for lockdown? People passing it on before they know they’ve got it, because they haven’t developed symptoms yet.

@tilder

It's an economic research group. That promotes views thst financially benefit it's members.

Likes to discredit climate change science and promote the economic advantages of sweatshops.

According to Wiki.

Nice people then.

Lot’s of people say that some members of the government and their advisers have vested interests in the vaccine companies, etc so they seem to all be as bad as each other.

ruddy economist speaking out of turn He's wrong.

Is very good evidence that people can transmit if they are in the phase before they get symptoms There are at least 4 studies that show 'pre-symptomatic' or 'asymptomatic' spread seemed to happen. The JAMA study reckons household attack rate was around 5%.

Report 38 from Imperial is reckoning the secondary attack rate from people without symptoms (using real people's observed data) is 3.5-12%.

Hard to thing to measure but not a 'no evidence' situation by any means.

Oh, all as bad as each other then. Let any bullshit bloom!!

That's interesting. I've been wondering how it spreads if you're asymptomatic- no coughing or sneezing to pass it on, so how does it get from you to someone else admist the social distancing measures. It must be difficult for it. Having said that, I imagine in places where measures aren't being adhered to (schools for one) then it would be easier for asymptomatic spread to happen. Maybe worth bearing in mind how different schools are in China to the UK. And perhaps shops/ shoppers too

JAMA is a proper place to get your information.

Lot’s of people say that some... sounds like Trumpism.

My DS10 had COVID in October. Completely asymptomatic. 2 other children in his class had COVID at the same time too. Again all asymptomatic.

The teacher had infected them who did have symptoms and all children were tested due to being a close contact with the teacher. We would have been none the wiser that he had COVID as there wasn’t a bother on him.

Not one child, including my DS passed it on to any of their family or close contacts. My DS shares a room with my other DS. He was not isolated from any of us at any time and he still did not pass it on.

Aah, yet another person with no infectious disease expertise (this time an economist from a right wing think tank) misinterpreting that Wuhan study.
mobile.twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1330595279947632642

Not sure why people still insist on getting their info from people with zero relevant expertise (right wing radio hosts, commentators and newspaper columnists, economists, diet book authors, etc), who have been consistently wrong on just about everything; instead of listening to people who actually have relevant expertise and years of experience, who oddly enough actually know what they are talking about and as a result have for the most part, been mostly right about just about everything.

According to Wiki.

@SRYnegative

According to Wiki.

True and hence why I mentioned the source.

However it is also true that economic think tanks such as this are very experienced at spinning a story to benefit their members while nearly avoiding the truth.

The JAMA paper referenced above is published in a proper peer reviewed place to get information. It just tends to be less digestible than the think tank because it's not trying to sell bullshit to people.

Neatly not nearly! although it has a sprinkling of truth, enough to make it seem plausible.

@CoffeeandCroissant

Aah, yet another person with no infectious disease expertise (this time an economist from a right wing think tank) misinterpreting that Wuhan study. mobile.twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1330595279947632642

Not sure why people still insist on getting their info from people with zero relevant expertise (right wing radio hosts, commentators and newspaper columnists, economists, diet book authors, etc), who have been consistently wrong on just about everything; instead of listening to people who actually have relevant expertise and years of experience, who oddly enough actually know what they are talking about and as a result have for the most part, been mostly right about just about everything.

I had almost exactly the same words in a heated argument with my mum. She has no medical degree and she even admits that most of the science goes over her head. But she has a fav radio station. and they have "experts". She called me today to say that until midnight today our home country would let planes land from the UK and we have to be on one. Coming from someone in a country where the infection rate is around 18% and the death rate % for the past 3 months is actually higher than UK. But we are all going to die here.

Yes, don’t forget that WHO also said this.

Obviously not allowed to question the narrative though!

@FMSucks
How interesting!

@Redbrickwall

Yes, don’t forget that WHO also said this.

Obviously not allowed to question the narrative though!

So many people misunderstood what the WHO said that they made a point of clarifying their point shortly afterwards.

www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200609/who-clairifies-comments-on-asymptomatic-covid-spread
“I was trying to articulate what we know” from a very limited number of studies, Van Kerkhove said Tuesday. “In that, I used the phrase ‘very rare.’ It’s a misunderstanding to state that globally, asymptomatic transmission is very rare.”

Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)

18.0 % symptomatic vs 0.7% asymptomatic in the JAMA meta-analysis is quite convincingly reduced, however (180 vs 7 infections in 1000)

MedSchoolRat your data is eroneous