This had to be the case from the data. We knew the models were shit... and the rest was political bullshit from about the second week. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asy...-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections. Some people, particularly young and otherwise healthy individuals, who are infected by the coronavirus never develop symptoms or only develop mild symptoms. Others might not develop symptoms until days after they were actually infected. Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated that the virus could spread from person-to-person contact, even if the carrier didn’t have symptoms. But WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is not the main way it’s being transmitted. “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.” Government responses should focus on detecting and isolating infected people with symptoms, and tracking anyone who might have come into contact with them, Van Kerkhove said. She acknowledged that some studies have indicated asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread in nursing homes and in household settings. More research and data are needed to “truly answer” the question of whether the coronavirus can spread widely through asymptomatic carriers, Van Kerkhove added. “We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.” If asymptomatic spread proves to not be a main driver of coronavirus transmission, the policy implications could be tremendous. A report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published on April 1 cited the “potential for presymptomatic transmission” as a reason for the importance of social distancing. “These findings also suggest that to control the pandemic, it might not be enough for only persons with symptoms to limit their contact with others because persons without symptoms might transmit infection,” the CDC study said. To be sure, asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread of the virus appears to still be happening, Van Kerkhove said but remains rare. That finding has important implications for how to screen for the virus and limit its spread. “What we really want to be focused on is following the symptomatic cases,” Van Kerkhove said. “If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts, we would drastically reduce” the outbreak.
“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare." In the press conference Monday, Kerkhove said there are fewer asymptomatic patients than previously thought. "f you actually go back and say how many of them are truly asymptomatic, we find out that many have really mild disease, very mild disease, they’re not quote unquote COVID symptoms, meaning they may not have developed fever yet." .... Van Kerkhove later tweeted a statement that cited a June summary by the WHO on symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission: "Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms." https://www.axios.com/who-coronavir...nts-08d84e31-1846-44d8-8fe1-2343ff850764.html
JEM - stop posting fake crap. In less than 24 hours, WHO completely walks back their statement. Coronavirus Live Updates: W.H.O. Walks Back Claim That Asymptomatic Transmission is Rare https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/world/coronavirus-updates.html A top expert at the World Health Organization on Tuesday walked back her earlier assertion that transmission of the coronavirus by people who do not have symptoms is “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 is 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. Dr. Van Kerkhove said that the estimates of transmission from people without symptoms come primarily from models, which may not provide an accurate representation. “That’s a big open question, and that remains an open question,” she said.
you are the biggest douche here4dnc it was not fake...that it was walked back... but even the walk back was qualified we still don't have any science showing there was a reason to lock down the low risk group (healthy) once the hospital beds were not being utilized. . The WHO said there are member countries who reported that is very rare for asymptomatic to spread. The WHO said what we should do is concentrate of testing and tracing the symptomatic. which is exactly what I have said given that we have clusters and probably 80 percent or more of this virus is spread by super spreaders.
This is not just a case of Maria Van Kerkhove walking back a statement. The Who wrote this in their June 5th circular titled... Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19 "Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms. Among the available published studies, some have described occurrences of transmission from people who did not have symptoms.(21,25-32) For example, among 63 asymptomatically-infected individuals studied in China, there was evidence that 9 (14%) infected another person.(31) Furthermore, among two studies which carefully investigated secondary transmission from cases to contacts, one found no secondary transmission among 91 contacts of 9 asymptomatic cases,(33) while the other reported that 6.4% of cases were attributable to pre-symptomatic transmission.(32) The available data, to date, on onward infection from cases without symptoms comes from a limited number of studies with small samples that are subject to possible recall bias and for which fomite transmission cannot be ruled out."
The economy worldwide has been open a while, now. If the scare tactics of the extreme liberal media hacks was anywhere true, most countries would have hundreds of thousands dead in short order. None of that is happening for sure. Still, some governments are ignorant and willing to destroy their countries economies on the say so, of their so called experts. Heaven help them because the job losses especially, in the third world countries will never come back. They have also, prevented a lot of people from earning a living and have done squat for the damage they have caused so far. People are actually, starving for lack of any earnings to feed their families but, nothing to see here. So, called health experts who are political hacks will decide their fates.
This June 9th report by the CDC shows the potential for natural immunity and therefore natural herd immunity. What is added by this report? Among a convenience sample of 382 young adult U.S. service members aboard an aircraft carrier experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak, 60% had reactive antibodies, and 59% of those also had neutralizing antibodies at the time of specimen collection. One fifth of infected participants reported no symptoms.... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6923e4.htm?s_cid=mm6923e4_e&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM30202 SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members — USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020 "Approximately one half of the participants with positive ELISA results also had neutralizing antibodies, which indicate functional antibodies that would be expected to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is a promising indicator of immunity, and in several participants, neutralizing antibodies were still detectable >40 days after symptom onset. Ongoing studies assessing the humoral antibody response over time will aid the interpretation of serologic results in an outbreak investigation such as this." more at link... --- Note... don't listen to morons who pretend this study means only 60 percent of the people exposed to Covid can get antibodies. (that theory is without support in this paper.) There is no scientific reason why some people who have no antibodies today... could not develop them in the future. There is no reason to argue that this population of sailors would develop antibodies at the exact same rate as the general population. All we know is that this papers says the presence of neutralizing antibodies is promising for potential immunity.
You are once again misrepresenting the study by deliberately only taking a single sentence out of context. The study clearly states that 40% of the infected never developed immunity. This means that "natural herd immunity" is a farce for COVID-19.
I am not misrepresenting anything. That is awesome. 60 percent of the sailors had had neutralizing antibodies and that is promising for the prospect of natural immunity.... And if we can get natural immunity we can get to herd immunity. You were a lair for saying that paper means natural herd immunity is a myth. Nothing in the paper says that.
If a mere 60% of those infected acquire neutralizing antibodies for COVID-19 then achieving the 70% level required in a population to achieve "natural herd immunity" is a pipe dream. It's a matter of straightforward math that even the most dimwitted elementary school student should understand.