As a Scientist, I have been puzzled by the reporting of so many asymptomatic CoV-2 infected persons. I initially assumed that what was being reported as asymptomatic positive were mostly pre-symptomatic positive, but the number still seemed way too high to me. Our experience with related corona viral infections, e.g. SARS-CoV, suggests that most who become infected will have symptoms, though not necessarily at the clinical level. The reporting of so many positive tests with so many reported as asymptomatic became a real puzzle to me, and frankly, I thought something must be wrong, but i had no idea what it might be. Recently it was reported that both the CDC and some of the States have been co-mingling serological and RNA test results. This should not have been done. It is essential to keep results from these two types of test results segregated! I am absolutely certain that both State labs and the CDC understand that these results must not be mingled, and so why this was done remains a complete mystery. In fact, it's inexcusable. To make matters worse, we've been informed that, until very recently, the readily available, commercial, serological tests -- the quick ones done with a finger prick -- are highly unreliable for CoV-2, with some reportedly yielding as high as 50% false positives! If there are significant numbers of false positives in co-mingled CoV-2 data sets, which now seems likely, that could explain what seems to be an irrationally high number of asymptomatic positive tests being reported. In other words, if the number of infections is erroneously high due to unreliable serological testing, that would explain the irrationally high asymptomatic rate being reported. This would also mean that the infection, once acquired, is somewhat more dangerous than many believe. Based on prior studies, it should be an uncommon that those who test serologically positive did not already have noticeable symptoms! The high number of asymptomatic, ~50%, among those testing positive, seems almost crazily too high based on what was found for a closely related virus, SARS -- another corona virus causing serious respiratory illness. Based on studies of SARS-CoV infection in which reliable serological tests were used, I would expect an asymptomatic rate among those testing positive for SARS-CoV of between 5 and 15%, much lower than what's being reported. See for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371799/
Just curious, what kind of scientist are you? CDC said 1/3 is asymptomatic, not 50%. But that is still pretty high. I think the virus has a weakness we just haven't figured it out completely.
Where are all these asymptomatic tests being performed? Everywhere I look, you cannot get a test unless you have symptoms, because the tests are so hard to come by, apparently. What a circus this all is.
Ph.D., Electrochemistry. My specific area of research in later years involved both nucleic acid chemistry and solid state devices. I agree both the CDC and the other article I quoted the 50% figure from are too high. Something is wrong.
This was on another thread. Interesting. 1. Data was never even close to being correct. 2. Spread of virus runs down rather quickly on its own. 3. Lock down prevents herd immunity. Most are not that contagious to the virus. 4. Need to really reflect on those with preexisting conditions. The virus becomes weaker over time. Big difference between presence of the virus and enough of a viral load to cause medical problems. Also not on you tube but there is no evidence that the virus is mutating info more infectious forms. For those that know about mutation the effect of a mutation is usually either neutral or weakens virility of a virus. **Usually only with human intervention does a natural virus acquire gain of function.** Bottom line - The scientific and medical community really dropped the ball here. It is very unsettling to discern how unknowledgeable they are about so many things.
I agree the data and results don't match up with the models. The models used by Fouci and many others are old SIR and SIRI models from decades ago. they are no good. (imo) During the previous SARS outbreak a new model was discussed by academics Clusters and superspreaders. Google scientists had a paper a few weeks ago which in my mind confirmed what other scientists found out about SARS. Most poeple only spread the virus to one person or fewer. Very few people (the super spreaders) spread the virus to 80 percent of the people who catch the virus. ==== My theory... Variable Load Super Spreader model. The super spreaders themselves or those with compromised immune systems either spread more potent Covid or a much higher viral load of Covid. Then non super spreaders... shed a virus which has lower potency for very low load. The shedding of a different viral load or potency could explain why stats are so different in NY and San Diego. Immune systems, fresh air, sun.... age. Massively different outcomes. Observations supporting the the VLSS model.. Last week the NYT had an article explaining viral load matters 2 weeks google scienctists provided a paper about clusters and super spreader Many super spreader papers on SARs shows that many of the super spreaders had other problems... lung issues. HIV super spreaders frequently had urinary tract infections. Now the virus is disappearing in London per Oxford scientists trying to get enough patients for a vaccine trail. Scientists in Italy say Covid has lost its potency and barely registers on tests. Conclusion... The cluster and Super spreader model almost has to be correct. The VLSS model is conjecture that imo best explains the clusters and data.
Questions 1. What do you think the source of the Wuhan Virus was? This topic has died down. I suspect worker in lab doing increase in function experiments. 2. Do you suspect there may be more than one strand of the virus or that some agents were infected with a heavier viral load? Mention has been made of mice "injected" with the Wuhan Virus. 3. Do you think that the virus is mutating and the mutations are making the virus weaker? Note this would be especially true if the virus was artificially manufactured in a lab. Whatever - numbers and strength of virus over estimated. Will effect social interaction for years. In a tangible way related to taking off your shoes at the airport. Something that no longer provides almost any useful benefit except it employs a lot people.
1. Chances of an outbreak randomly happening in the only city with a BSL lab 4 are very low. 2. I think there is a slight mutation but too early to tell.
We should definitely pay attention to your first point here. The second is a question for science to answer. It's a reasonable postulate. Sadly, Politics has intervened and made cooperation with our Chinese virologist colleagues more difficult. The most likely thing to have happened is that a lab worker was inadvertently exposed and also, inadvertently, infected others. An adversarial relationship is not helpful in getting to the bottom of what happened.