- This topic has 9 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by Clark.
January 7, 2021 at 14:31 #64476Jim
“I wanted to share this study, that was published in Nature in November 2020, which shows
“there was no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious.”
It was a study of 10 million residents which found around 300 asymptomatic persons, none of which went on to infect other people.
“All asymptomatic positive cases, repositive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the results of nucleic acid testing were negative. None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”
and “A total of 1174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19”
Seems the west has chosen to forget this vital study and continue to implement more lockdowns which are destroying society and peoples mental health.
JimJanuary 7, 2021 at 15:05 #64478Clark
Well it’s spreading somehow, and faster than ever, and social restrictions (“lockdowns”) clearly slow it down or stop it, Wuhan being a prime example. See also the effect of the UK autumn restrictions on these graphs.
With vaccines taking time to deploy, and possibly ineffective against some of the new variants, we have no other tool against it.
Does the study consider presymptomatic cases?January 7, 2021 at 16:48 #64491fwl
You make an interesting point. I would also like to understand the risks with pre-symptomatic cases. I suspect that its mainly infectious or more so when there are symptoms, but I may be wrong and base my observations off my very limited personal experience.
Understanding the risk as to pre-symptomatic infection could dramatically change behaviour (provide everyone then complies) and economic impact.January 7, 2021 at 17:08 #64492ET
It is difficult to reconcile the findings of that study with what is happening in US, UK, Ireland and many other countries in Europe. If you read the whole study you will see where they mention the limitations of it.
“This study has several limitations that need to be discussed. First, this was a cross-sectional screening programme, and we are unable to assess the changes over time in asymptomatic positive and reoperative results.”
“Second, although a positive result of nucleic acid testing reveals the existence of the viral RNAs, some false negative results were likely to have occurred,”
Also they note that “Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious, and might subsequently become symptomatic………”January 30, 2021 at 01:04 #66528Clark
Important paragraph from the Wuhan study linked in Jim’s opening comment:
– “Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study.”
These seem to be late asymptomatic cases rather than early or presymptomatic ones; I expect they are people whose immune systems had cleared the virus. Jim wrote:
– “Seems the west has chosen to forget this vital study and continue to implement more lockdowns which are destroying society and peoples mental health”
No, this shows quite the opposite; that the Wuhan lockdown was effective in wiping out the virus from the population.January 30, 2021 at 08:44 #66544Clark
The very first two lines of that study:
– “Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management.”
Jan 23 to April 8 is eleven weeks. Essentially no COVID-19 was found five to eight weeks later. So eleven weeks of “Stringent COVID-19 control measures” wiped out COVID-19.
UK “lockdown” started on March 23 2020. So eleven weeks later, June 8, the UK could have been free of COVID-19, had the measures been “stringent”.
What is “stringent”?January 30, 2021 at 14:07 #66548Pigeon English
This is what I call stringent; https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gj5f
Wuhan under lockdown bbc documentary filmed by Chinese volunteerJanuary 30, 2021 at 19:01 #66555Clark
Pigeon English, that’s why I put quotes around “lockdown” when referring to the UK. China had lockdowns; the UK has a stay-at-home order.
But stringent measures could be enforced humanely. The main things are that government should provide quarantine facilities, and give monetary support directly to the people rather than routed through businesses. Empower the people and they’ll protect their health for themselves, thus protecting everyone else.
It would be a lot cheaper too, to get it right once and get it over with, than this eternal procrastination and half measures. Look at these graphs for China. By mid March they’d crushed covid, and since then it’s been barely an issue.January 31, 2021 at 19:23 #66602glenn_uk
First item: Get everyone on board
Well there’s a major problem right there – never going to happen, is it? Right here we’ve got denialists and minimisers, we’ve had “hugs of death” John Goss saying how he likes to embarrass his golf partners (and himself actually, only he’s too silly to realise it) by offering them hand shakes all the time. That’s when he takes a break from advising people to go out and hug someone.
With people like that actually working against moves to get everyone on board – not content to soft-peddle or reluctantly get with the programme, they’re actively trying to sabotage public health efforts – there’s not a chance we’re going to work together.
Bear in mind, these denialists we see here are people who are literate, and capable of forming arguments – albeit in a decidedly dishonest fashion. God help us in convincing the real thickos to do the right thing.February 1, 2021 at 01:22 #66614Clark
glenn_uk, instead of bailing out huge corporations the government should just give money to the deniers*, for behaving themselves. They’d come into line right away. All this conspiracy theory stuff is pure psychological projection. They think that all employees invent a false pandemic when paid to merely because they would.
(* Along with everyone else, of course. “Good Behaviour Bonus”.)