This is absurd. This report just came out and said the opposite.
Time - Up to 80% of COVID-19 Infections Are Asymptomatic, a New Case Report Says
https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-asymptomatic-transmission/
I haven’t looked at either report to see which one might be more accurate if that even is possible. But it maybe that the data is limited or “polluted” in both.
Your article may not be refuting this. It's quoting a study saying that 80% of the infected people on a cruise ship were asymptomatic. That doesn't necessarily mean that they got infected via other asymptomatic people (although the author of the TIME article seems to be drawing that conclusion).
Good point.
Here is where I struggle though --- the cruise ship isn't exactly an outlier. We've had a number of US cases where they've tested everyone in prisons, and we've seen multiple cases where 97% (!!!) of the infected people be asymptomatic.
I suppose it's possible that all of those asymptomatic folks were infected by those who were showing symptoms. But that means those with symptoms are spreading it a very significant rate.
Beyond my belief that the USA will not see a true second wave (we will instead experience a wavy plateau that goes on for a few months), I am struggling with what to believe any more. :-(
Its possible that Asymptomatic people sneeze and cough for other reasons that may spread the virus which is why the WHO says its rare. Could be saliva too. People share drinks on cruise ships. etc...
Just thinking out loud here.
It is generally believed that a relatively small number of "super-spreaders" are responsible for a large number of infections. I don't know if it can explain situations like the prisons, though.
from NYT
A top expert at the World Health Organization on Tuesday walked back her earlier assertion that transmission of the coronavirus by people who did not have symptoms was “very rare.”
Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission was rare globally.
“I was just responding to a question; I wasn’t stating a policy of W.H.O. or anything like that,” she said.
Guys I can't keep this schedule straight, is today "trust" or "don't trust" the WHO day?
Easy. Do you agree? Then trust. Otherwise. Distrust. Same as every other biased source today.
Ok, so only trust those who agree with you? Great way to go about the world.
Another great way to go about the world... is being totally devoid of sarcasm. Sucks to be you.
Hard to tell on here these days who is being sarcastic.......sorry
No worries. Everyone is losing their shit.
Woosh.
The word "Easy" would have been the sarcasm clue for me.
What does a rock band know about viruses anyway?
rock band? i'm more worried about horton
Boil that dust speck...
Thank you for always being a light!
They know enough to NOT live in the city but Townsend
Trust everyone!
My wife has a coaster on her nightstand that says, "welcome to the shit show". I see it every morning when I bring her coffee. Instead of turning on the news, I just look at that
I won’t get fooled again
I won’t get fooled again
Hopefully this is the case. Unfortunately, the WHO is a somewhat unreliable source of information in recent history. Hopefully the findings are repeatable by additional parties and we can continue to open things up at a more accelerated timeline than many thought possible.
The real life experiment on asymptomatic transmission is happening right now. Just look at the images of so many of these protest occurring around the world: some with masks on correctly, some with them on incorrectly, some with no masks at all, sometimes distanced yet often packed... basically the perfect test to see if sporting crowds are safe.
We'll know in a few weeks.
Outdoor sporting crowds.
That's true. What's also true is that covid-related hospitalizations (aka "critical cases") have increased daily in Texas since the state reopened. Today the number of Texans in critical condition reached its highest number ever. Next week will be worse. Everything's bigger in Texas.
Just look at the images of so many of these protest occurring around the world: some with masks on correctly, some with them on incorrectly, some with no masks at all, sometimes distanced yet often packed
You just described the grocery store.
Yes, but then multiply the number of people per gathering by an order of magnitude or two and subtract the benefit of disinfectant and other sanitation measures observed at the grocery stores.
This could all be a non-issue, or a massive second wave in the making, or something in between the two.
You're being pedantic.
The person I responded to noted that the protest have largely violated all the guidance we've been given in the past three months.
My response was people not wearing masks, wearing them incorrectly, people not social distancing, etc. is happening at the grocery store as much as it is at protests.
RE: your math... if you want to go down that road, consider 1 in 7 people visit a grocery store in a day. Also, subtract the times the disinfectant wipes next to the carts and the hand sanitizer next to the checkout is empty. Now multiply that by not just grocery stores but Targets, Home Depots, Lowes, Wal-Marts, etc.
I guess my post, and I wasn't clear about it, is I was noting that there's a lot of bad/unsafe behavior all around and it's not limited to protests.
Not pedantic at all - just noting the greater circumstances of each type of incident (recent mass protests vs grocery store visits).
I can't speak for other locales, but my wife and I have been going together to Meijer, Kroger, Aldi, Costco and a local store franchise at various times through the pandemic - we have not seen many (if any) instances of people (not in the same group) closer than 3-4 ft, let alone talking to each other. The natural environment of most of these places is sterile - even before the pandemic - and is now taken further due to the policies imposed by their managements.
I would agree that, over time, an individual may come into general proximity of more people in their accumulated grocery visits. However, the single event mass gatherings (especially some of those highlighted in the news... which are not really one-time events either) would present a greater risk of spreader events. Am I saying it will happen? No, but I would not be surprised if we see some of those effects over the next month or so (and if not, just about every public event will be justified in reopening).
At least they’re mostly wearing masks. Unlike the protests two months ago where they were protesting to not wear masks but they wore assault rifles instead.
I had to login to down-vote this because it's so stupid. You can argue that this cause is worth the potential spread of COVID, but there have probably been 1000x as many people that have gone to these protests now than protested at the Michigan capital. The spreading of the disease from this is going to be much much worse.
Also, there was never a spike from the Michigan protests, which may support the topic of this thread.
Assault rifles have been shown to reduce the spread of Coronavirus...and crime.
At least they’re mostly wearing masks.
No.
Wearing a mask improperly does not equal wearing a mask.
I am curious who is informing you-seriously. And what is your personal expertise that supports your statement? Relative to our politically driven CDC the WHO is our most reliable source. We remain our own worst enemy.
Well, in January the WHO said there was no evidence that the virus could spread from human to human even though Chinese doctors and scientists had already proven it did days before the WHO's announcement. Then between February and March/early April they said the virus could live and spread on surfaces, masks wouldn't help and and asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a substantial portion of the spread. Fast forward to May and all of these appear to be untrue. The virus is not easily transmitted via surfaces, asymptomatic carries may not spread the virus and masks are one of the primary preventative measures we have.
Now, I'm not a conspiracy dope and I have nothing against the organization but if any organization is so drastically wrong on such a consistent basis then there is most definitely reason to be skeptical about them. Throw in the whole Taiwan debacle they had in the middle of this whole thing and there seems to be sufficient evidence to support that they may not be the best source.
I am so sick of hearing about that January 14 WHO tweet. First off, they said there was "no clear evidence" of human transmission, which is not at all any kind of conclusion like it's being made out to be. There were only a grand total of FORTY ONE cases of COVID-19 in China at that point in time, with only one single death. Barely anything was known about the virus yet, but no one mentions that the WHO was still warning everyone on that same day about the possibility of human-to-human transmission due to similarities to the SARS and MERS viruses, even if they thought there wasn't clear evidence for that spread yet. Only a few days later they were publicly sounding the alarm about sustained human transmission. To be honest, I think all the criticism of that tweet is utterly ridiculous.
Second, I'm confused about your other examples of the WHO being "drastically wrong on a consistent basis." Because the virus CAN live and spread on surfaces, it's just not the primary mode of spread, so I don't understand what exactly the WHO was wrong about there. Regarding this new info about asymptomatic carriers, the WHO said that when asymptomatic cases were scrutinized, they found that the reality was that most of the "asymptomatic" carriers actually had mild symptoms and didn't recognize it. This is a data reporting issue, not really a WHO analysis issue. So again, this is based on new information becoming available.
The actual fair criticism, IMO, is that their guidelines for masks have been so focused on how to use masks to prevent infection for the wearer. They should have been doing more to emphasize that wearing cloth/surgical masks can help limit the spread of virus if an infected person is wearing a mask. But this is a far cry from some pattern of consistent errors on their part.
Information we could have used 3 MONTHS AGO!!
Better late than never I guess.
But wait I thought the WHO has been wrong about numerous other things the last few months and cannot be trusted until they apparently say something I like
No, that's a really odd understanding lol.
The correct answer is you cannot trust the WHO while they are denying the existence of 24 million people and any thoughts of their health during the worst pandemic in 100 years - /takes a deep breath/ - as an ugly and horrendously off-mission kowtow to China.
:) Reminder to verify your sources! :)
I see you've played knifey spooney before.
People still take their statements at face value?
I mean, it's an overblown issue anyways...might as well backpedal all the way, W.H.O.
Scientists are still learning more and more about this virus. It's not that old information was necessarily wrong, but that as we learn more about the virus, presumed information will be updated. Nonetheless, 112k people have died in the US and cases are rising in many states so it's no time to be complacent.
Also, the definition of "asymptomatic" is pretty vague. Someone with COVID could just have a sore throat and that's not considered asymptomatic but could still spread it
"we reserve the right to get smarter"
That's a lot of mental gymnastics to justify the bullshit of a corrupt organization. Not only that, these guys don't couch what they're saying in anything near the uncertainty that they should.
I'm not defending them and it's not mental gymnastics. This virus is basically 6 months old. We don't know much about it. Information will change as we learn more about it