Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Almost Half Of All Covid Cases Show Zero Symptoms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Almost Half Of All Covid Cases Show Zero Symptoms

    This is nuts.

    -----------

    Source: Scripps Research Institute

    Summary: Asymptomatic infections may have played a significant role in the early and ongoing spread of COVID-19 and highlight the need for expansive testing and contact tracing to mitigate the pandemic.

    An extraordinary percentage of people infected by the virus behind the ongoing deadly COVID-19 pandemic never show symptoms of the disease, according to the results of a Scripps Research analysis of public datasets on asymptomatic infections.

    The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that asymptomatic infections may account for as much as 45 percent of all COVID-19 cases, playing a significant role in the early and ongoing spread of COVID-19. The report highlights the need for expansive testing and contact tracing to mitigate the pandemic.

    "The silent spread of the virus makes it all the more challenging to control," says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and professor of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research. "Our review really highlights the importance of testing. It's clear that with such a high asymptomatic rate, we need to cast a very wide net, otherwise the virus will continue to evade us."

    Together with behavioral scientist Daniel Oran, Topol collected information from testing studies on 16 diverse cohorts from around the world. These datasets -- gathered via keyword searches of PubMed, bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as Google searches of relevant news reports -- included data on nursing home residents, cruise ship passengers, prison inmates and various other groups.

    "What virtually all of them had in common was that a very large proportion of infected individuals had no symptoms," says Oran. "Among more than 3,000 prison inmates in four states who tested positive for the coronavirus, the figure was astronomical: 96 percent asymptomatic."

    The review further suggests that asymptomatic individuals are able to transmit the virus for an extended period of time, perhaps longer than 14 days. The viral loads are very similar in people with or without symptoms, but it remains unclear whether their infectiousness is of the same magnitude. To resolve that issue, we'll need large-scale studies that include sufficient numbers of asymptomatic people.

    The authors also conclude that the absence of symptoms may not imply an absence of harm. CT scans conducted on 54 percent of 76 asymptomatic individuals on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, appear to show significant subclinical lung abnormalities raising the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection impacting lung function that might not be immediately apparent. The scientists say further research is needed to confirm the potential significance of this finding.

    The authors also acknowledge that the lack of longitudinal data makes distinguishing between asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals difficult. An asymptomatic individual is someone who is infected with SARS-CoV-2, but never develops symptoms of COVID-19, while a presymptomatic person is similarly infected, but will eventually develop symptoms. Longitudinal testing, which refers to repeated testing of individuals over time, would help differentiate between the two.

    "Our estimate of 40 to 45 percent asymptomatic means that, if you're unlucky enough to get infected, the probability is almost a flip of a coin on whether you're going to have symptoms. So to protect others, we think that wearing a mask makes a lot of sense," Oran concludes.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0612172208.htm

  • #2
    People not wearing masks are a serious threat to public health. Banning them from public places, airplanes etc. is absolutely the right step.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scrumhalf View Post
      People not wearing masks are a serious threat to public health. Banning them from public places, airplanes etc. is absolutely the right step.
      look at it from this stand point scrum. imagine there comes a day when all illnesses, viruses, and disease have cures. a day when nobody dies from these things.

      i'm not arguing masks, i agree with you. just a little thought experiment. can you imagine living in a world where nobody is dying of sickness and everyone lives to 100? holy hell can you imagine the population?

      i'd argue that these sorts of events are natures way of keeping somewhat of a balance. imagine a world of 20 billion people? 50 billion? scrum that would be a world far far worse of than our current situation with covid.

      just a big picture thought experiment that I think we all need to think about. the planet can only hold so many of us...

      Comment


      • #4
        That's fine for a thought experiment, but we are not anywhere close to that point. Right now, people are dying that don't need to die.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bouncer View Post

          look at it from this stand point scrum. imagine there comes a day when all illnesses, viruses, and disease have cures. a day when nobody dies from these things.

          i'm not arguing masks, i agree with you. just a little thought experiment. can you imagine living in a world where nobody is dying of sickness and everyone lives to 100? holy hell can you imagine the population?

          i'd argue that these sorts of events are natures way of keeping somewhat of a balance. imagine a world of 20 billion people? 50 billion? scrum that would be a world far far worse of than our current situation with covid.

          just a big picture thought experiment that I think we all need to think about. the planet can only hold so many of us...
          I do agree with you that eventually medicine will get so good that it will be detrimental to the population to have people routinely living to 115.
          I'm not sure about a virus such as this being a check on this problem, however. There is a whole bunch of evidence and experts who believe this virus is one engineered in a lab and got released, in China, accidentally. China's safety guidelines are constantly under attack for being too lax so it's very possible. What I also think is possible was it was let out on purpose as an attack that could always be denied as an accident. Think about it. China could care less about their people plus they have a huge population problem. They would not mind releasing such a virus, even if it compromises some of their own people. Also, in a communist country like China it is much easier to control the spread of the virus because it is much easier to control the peoples actions. Chinese govt tells people to stay home do you think any of them would ever risk leaving their house?? Of course not because they know no law enforcement would hesitate to simply shoot them.
          It's a perfect way to attack a democratic capitalistic society without them even knowing they are being attacked. Look what is happening. It is done in China. Here the population can not be controlled and a capitalistic society can not survive a long shut down of businesses without causing something similar or worse than the great depression. That is why these states have been so quick to reopen and, under the circumstances, I don't blame them.

          Think of it this way, if you own a small business that provides everything for you, your wife and two children. Would you rather the government force you to shut down for a length of time that you loose your business and your family loses everything and is destitute. Or would you rather just risk possibly getting a virus that kills 3% of those who get it?
          For most that is a stupid question the first option is basically killing the people without killing them. The second you may or may not even get this virus and if you do you have a 97% chance of surviving it depending on your physical health. I can not imagine having absolutley nothing loosing my house, car, everything. I would rather just be dead than deal with that.
          But, do you see what type of unrest and economic problems and possible catastrophe this virus could end up causing here? While China was able go control it and end it I have no idea where this could lead here. You dont think the Chinese knew this exact thing would happen if such a virus was let out? Of course they did. You cant attack the US in a conventional way because you will end up destroyed by nuclear weapon's. I am only guessing but if you wanted to attack would this not be the perfect way to do it without ever having to take full responsibility?

          Sent from my SM-A207M using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pgc640 View Post
            I do agree with you that eventually medicine will get so good that it will be detrimental to the population to have people routinely living to 115.
            I'm not sure about a virus such as this being a check on this problem, however. There is a whole bunch of evidence and experts who believe this virus is one engineered in a lab and got released, in China, accidentally. China's safety guidelines are constantly under attack for being too lax so it's very possible. What I also think is possible was it was let out on purpose as an attack that could always be denied as an accident. Think about it. China could care less about their people plus they have a huge population problem. They would not mind releasing such a virus, even if it compromises some of their own people. Also, in a communist country like China it is much easier to control the spread of the virus because it is much easier to control the peoples actions. Chinese govt tells people to stay home do you think any of them would ever risk leaving their house?? Of course not because they know no law enforcement would hesitate to simply shoot them.
            It's a perfect way to attack a democratic capitalistic society without them even knowing they are being attacked. Look what is happening. It is done in China. Here the population can not be controlled and a capitalistic society can not survive a long shut down of businesses without causing something similar or worse than the great depression. That is why these states have been so quick to reopen and, under the circumstances, I don't blame them.

            Think of it this way, if you own a small business that provides everything for you, your wife and two children. Would you rather the government force you to shut down for a length of time that you loose your business and your family loses everything and is destitute. Or would you rather just risk possibly getting a virus that kills 3% of those who get it?
            For most that is a stupid question the first option is basically killing the people without killing them. The second you may or may not even get this virus and if you do you have a 97% chance of surviving it depending on your physical health. I can not imagine having absolutley nothing loosing my house, car, everything. I would rather just be dead than deal with that.
            But, do you see what type of unrest and economic problems and possible catastrophe this virus could end up causing here? While China was able go control it and end it I have no idea where this could lead here. You dont think the Chinese knew this exact thing would happen if such a virus was let out? Of course they did. You cant attack the US in a conventional way because you will end up destroyed by nuclear weapon's. I am only guessing but if you wanted to attack would this not be the perfect way to do it without ever having to take full responsibility?

            Sent from my SM-A207M using Tapatalk
            agree with your point. this one probably wasn't completely natrual. but i was talking about viruses in general. they have been with us since the dawn of man. without viruses and wars can you imagine our current population? they are actually good things in a sort of twisted kind of way.

            check this graph out. look at how many people the black death killed estimated 200 million fucken people. look at spanish flu. estimated 50 million. HIV 35 million. plague of Justinian 50 million.. now imagine how many of these people may have gone on to have kids and multiply had these viruses not taken them out. we would be living in a world population of of literally 3-4X what we have now. that's not sustainable.

            Comment


            • #7
              covid has been nothing so far by the way... hell the fucken hong kong flu of 1968 killed more than twice this amount of people...

              Comment


              • #8
                120,000 people would like to disagree with your sentiment. If they could.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Scrumhalf View Post
                  120,000 people would like to disagree with your sentiment. If they could.
                  120,000 people that were either half dead anyway or 900 years old. People that were on their way to eating themselves to death with candies and cakes, having to inject insulin 57 times a day. Or the people that smoked 57 packs of cigarettes a day etc..

                  Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That is simply not true. Yes, some people had comorbidities but many people died who had no business dying. Many old people died whose only fault was being old. Sorry B, you cannot be more wrong on this one. You are a young single fella with a very detached view on life. Talk to people who have lost loved ones, often healthy, and see if they agree with you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Scrumhalf View Post
                      That is simply not true. Yes, some people had comorbidities but many people died who had no business dying. Many old people died whose only fault was being old. Sorry B, you cannot be more wrong on this one. You are a young single fella with a very detached view on life. Talk to people who have lost loved ones, often healthy, and see if they agree with you.
                      bit of a rant coming so stick with me..

                      i know what your saying and if i had a loved one or a friend effected I would probably see it a little differently. but that would be an emotional point of view which we both know is not a clear minded one..

                      i don't know how you can argue my basic point which is that we are all a part of nature whether we like it or not. the natural way of things is that only the strong survive. that's a good thing. otherwise we have a world filled with the sick and the weak and they start to clog up the drain if you will. modern society and modern science has evolved to a point where we are artificially keeping people alive well past the point they have any business being alive. you ever see 600lb life on TLC? these people have about 700 different medications they are on. nature would take these fuckers out in a split second given the chance. all these disgusting people who can't stop eating their god damn doughnuts.. but here comes modern science and emotional people screaming... "but they are sons and daughters, they have families, lets save everyone!!!". scrum, to keep the weak and the old alive at all costs when it's clear the world and nature itself cannot and will not sustain it is a massive mistake.

                      in 20 years when the world population is well past the tipping point and all the forest have been cleared, all the oceans polluted, all the clean air filled with shit... i will come knock on your door and remind you of this conversation. i will say as we are both gasping for oxygen amongst the polluted filthy air... I TOLD YOU SO. while you're focused on the fucken LEAVES I can see the writing on the wall for the FOREST....

                      you need to pay more attention to the macro picture. a controlled burn is needed to prevent catastrophe. I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. there is no debate here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We'll have to agree to disagree.

                        I refuse to accept a Malthusian endgame. Thousands of people died who didn't have to. That to me is unacceptable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scrumhalf View Post
                          We'll have to agree to disagree.

                          I refuse to accept a Malthusian endgame. Thousands of people died who didn't have to. That to me is unacceptable.
                          I understand. But if we save everyone over time from every disease and sickness we will in effect insure the demise of all man kind. Stoping nature from doing it's job can only sustain for so long.

                          Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bouncer View Post
                            covid has been nothing so far by the way... hell the fucken hong kong flu of 1968 killed more than twice this amount of people...
                            Been saying this all along...it's bullshit

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X