You at the start there should be in caps but Doctors as you wrote it should be doctors. This is a basic standard for an I guess eight year olds? So why speak to someone who can't match an eight year old? Jem should be charged with wasting the time of doctors. I'm guessing the WHO are back to not sure by now.
This article gives a review consistent with what I remember seeing... The idea that 30 to 50 percent of infected people could be aysmptomatic came around before the antibody tests. ---- Researchers say anywhere from 25 percent to 80 percent of people with COVID-19 are unaware they have the virus. This allows the novel coronavirus to spread more rapidly throughout a community. Experts say these carriers without symptoms make it even more important for people to wear face masks in public. All data and statistics are based on publicly available data at the time of publication. Some information may be out of date. Visit our coronavirus hub and follow our live updates page for the most recent information on the COVID-19 outbreak. There may be a lot of people walking around who have COVID-19 but have no idea they are spreading the virus. The first word of this possibility came in early April from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, Dr. Robert Redfield, in an interview with National Public Radio affiliate WABE. “One of the [pieces of] information that we have confirmed now is that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually remain asymptomatic. That may be as many as 25 percent,” Redfield said. Then a few days later, researchers in Iceland reported that 50 percent of their novel coronavirus cases who tested positive had no symptoms. The testing had been conducted by deCODE, a subsidiary of the U.S. Biotech company Amgen. In another reportTrusted Source, the CDC stated that researchers in Singapore identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases. That report was backed up by a studyTrusted Source published in mid-April that concluded that people with no symptoms are the source of 44 percent of diagnosed COVID-19 cases. In addition, a studyTrusted Source published about the same time reported that people might be most contagious during the period before they have symptoms. Then, in late April, it was reported that the first known person to die from COVID-19 in the United States before she died of a heart attack on February 6 at her home in Northern California. Finally, two studies published in late May indicated that a high percentage of people with COVID-19 could be without symptoms. In one study, researchers reported that 104 of 128 people (81 percent) on a cruise ship who tested positive the novel coronavirus were asymptomatic. In another studyTrusted Source, researchers reported that 42 percent of people who tested positive for COVID-19 were without symptoms. “Of those of us that get symptomatic, it appears that we’re shedding significant virus in our oropharyngeal compartment, probably up to 48 hours before we show symptoms,” Redfield said. “This helps explain how rapidly this virus continues to spread across the country because we have asymptomatic transmitters.” https://www.healthline.com/health-news/50-percent-of-people-with-covid19-not-aware-have-virus
Redfield here is muddying the waters by speaking of the pre-symptomatic, who are at the time also asymptomatic, but all but ~7-15% of them will go on to develop symptoms. This must not be conflated with the large number of people who tested positive for antibodies but never experienced any symptoms. The data re asymptomatic transmission is incorrect because it includes many who were asymptomatic because they were never infected. And I have explained why. Read my posts carefully if you want to know why so many asymptomatic persons were being reported. In summary, the reason they were asymptomatic is that they were never infected. ~7-15% of those infected will be asymptomatic based on carefully collected data for the very closely related SARS-Covid virus. Greater numbers than this are wrong. They are based on simple, but insufficiently-specific, finger-prick antibody tests. These tests, that were being widely used, gave a very high number of false positives. The situation is no more complicated than that.
I am saying the stats we have about the asymptomatic came from before we had antibody tests. So your thesis can not be applicable to them. Hence... I wanted to you to provide some support that many antibody tests are being included in the stats regarding Covid positive and then asymptomatic. I am not denying you are correct... maybe there are studies which came out after the antibody tests, which are consistent with your idea... I don't know. Its a "novel" concept. I would like to read the support you have for it.
Well then people were just making a wild guess then weren't they? We had ELIZA, an expensive, but highly specific test, however the first antibody tests for Covid-2 made widely available in the U.S., and elsewhere, were insufficiently specific finger prick tests. These are quick and relatively inexpensive, but when applied to Covid-2 antibodies give a very high number of false positives. (These test do detect the presence of antibodies, but they're insufficiently specific for Covid-2; some improved quick tests may now be available.) The bottom line is that people who are not infected with live virus can not transmit regardless of whether they test positive, false positive, negative or false negative for antibodies. The CDC has never explained why they pooled highly unreliable finger prick antibody Covid-2 tests, with ELIZA and PCR tests. The cheapest, quickest, most readily available tests were the finger prick antibody tests. Consequently the results from these tests, many of which are false positives, outnumber those from the more reliable tests. Because the largest fraction of the entire co-mingled data set was coming from false positives it appeared that far more were infected with Covid-2 than anyone would think possible, and a large number of these were entirely asymptomatic. Hence all the jumping to false conclusions before it was realized how the data had been screwed with and how unreliable the quick antibody tests were.* In fact very carefully carried out ELIZA tests for antibodies to SARS-Covid have been published. These studies report, once the pre-symptomatic are weeded out, ~7% of those with SARS-Covid antibodies never experienced symptoms. This is a reasonable number. Covid-2 is very very similar to SARS Covid. there is no reason to think its inherent transmission rate and fraction of asymptomatic antibody carriers will be significantly different from what was found in careful studies for SARS-Covid. It is my personal opinion that current "Expert" opinion that there are large numbers of asymptomatic persons capable of transmitting the disease is wrong. ________________________ *A sinister interpretation of what happened would be that someone wanted to make the Covid-2 virus appear to be far less dangerous than it actually is, by making it appear that that few of many infected get sick. What better way to do that than to adopt an unproven, non-specific test for antibodies gives many false positives. In reality, based on SARS studies, about 7-15% of those infected with Covid-2 should experience no, or mild symptoms. This is a far cry from numbers as high as 80% being reported.
Its all conjecture... because we have shit for data... shit for models and shit for experts moron politicans and experts making shit policy choices. And fucking corrupt media refusing to hold those responsible for the shit data accountable. Because they want this shutdown to continue. And it is resulting in riots and disregard for the experts who cried sheep. What the CDC has done has made it impossible to draw conclusions from the data. It is completely unacceptable. Its also possible the vast majority of recent positive cases are incorrectly categorized antibody tests. So their nefarious incompetence can easily cut both ways. And we know its nefarious because it should have been corrected and recalculated days ago. in the public eye and making policy.
You just made a shit ton of conjectures about antibody tests being a large portion of the infected but asymptomatic..... Absent proof that is conjecture. You have produced no proof or a tiny bit of proof... (whatever you are calling Redfield) I showed that the WHO made those statements before there were antibody tests. Why do you play games? Just be logical.
You are right , jem. the U.S., has made a mess of the data. The WHO finding that asymptomatic transmission is very rare is undoubtedly correct. It is consistent with all the facts as known now, and is supported by very careful studies with a closely related corona virus, SARS. 30 to 40 percent (or higher in some cases) of those being reported as infected and asymptomatic are not. They are not infected, and have never been, not yet anyway, so of course they don't have symptoms.. They have neither the live virus nor antibodies to it. But when tested for antibodies with a simple test that gives a very high number of false positives, they test positive.
I feel like the idea of repeatable science and sharing links data so others in the community can run an analysis and confirm your findings....is 100 percent lost on you right now. 1. I also suspect asymptomatic transmission is rare. 2. What you have not established with data is... "30 to 40 percent (or higher in some cases) of those being reported as infected and asymptomatic are not. They are not infected, and have never been, not yet anyway, so of course they don't have symptoms" Question? Why can't you link us to some data supporting your claim? I feel like the idea of repeatable science and sharing the data is lost on you right now... but you of all people (being you claim to be a scientist) would want to share links and data? I just don't get it... it seems many people here lose there damn minds when discussing Covid.