Posted on 05/27/2020 5:01:43 PM PDT by CheshireTheCat
That doesn’t square with the findings from the Stanford University antibody tests performed in Santa Clara County, Los Angeles County, and 27 Major League Baseball Office and support staff.
A Germa. study found very high viral loads in the nose of asymptomatic carriers. It’s been reported elsewhere that asymptomatics are just as infectious as those with symptoms though I’m not certain where or how that conclusion was determined.
Why does it not square with those findings?
Those in that study would more accurately be called pre-symptomatic. I suppose some (maybe most) asymptomatics could have a low viral load.
Could you post links to any of those studies? I’ve been looking for them all along and haven’t seen any, except for a couple that show children don’t seem to be infectious carriers.
Hmm. Then the further question is there a difference in viral loads between the perpetually asymptomatic and those who are merely presymptomatic but about to start coughing on everyone. I guess you would have to swab hundreds or thousands of healthy people daily to see who catches it and what their viral load is.
And are the asymptomatic building immunity to the virus, and can they spread enough of the virus to cause a symptomatic infection, or creating more asymptomatic carriers?
It seems sensible that infected people who never develop any symptoms would have a low viral load or (maybe only have a high viral load briefly?), but I haven’t looked into that yet. A lot of things about this disease have surprised me.
“Up to 80% of COVID-19 Infections Are Asymptomatic, a New Case Report Says”
which also means “contact tracing” is a completely pointless fascist endeavor ...
The research shows just how prevalent asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 may be—a reality that both suggests official case counts are drastic underestimates, and emphasizes the importance of practicing social distancing even if you feel healthy.The Stanford study of the two big California counties and (I think) 27 different MLB team employees showed an infection rate of only 1% (MLB team employees) to 3% in the California counties (they were using serology tests to look for people who have HAD the disease, not those currently sick). The Stanford study was the first wide-scale testing in the U.S. and the findings from those studies suggests few Americans have had the disease. But this article seems to be saying it is very widespread and we are under-counting cases, while the Stanford studies show it is not widespread yet at all.Researchers have known for months that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is possible and common, but without population-wide testing, it’s been difficult to estimate how many people get infected without showing symptoms. The new paper provides an example of how widespread asymptomatic transmission can be, at least in a contained environment.
Those seem to be in direct conflict with each other. What do you think?
We have known about this 80% figure for months.
See here ( and note the date of publication ):
https://www.minnpost.com/health/2020/03/how-can-an-asymptomatic-person-still-spread-the-coronavirus/
This data started coming out from some of the early California tests to see if antibodies are around, without many if any symptoms.
Nationwide they are supposedly running free antibody studies to see if we had the disease and survived.
Good luck on qualifying for these supposedly free tests if you are over 50 to plus 80.
They stop the computer questions on you if you fall into this age group 50-80+. Then, they close down your application for the free test.
I asked a doctor why my wife and our neighbors were turned down.
He said the last thing they want in the database is a whole lot of senior citizens with Covid 19,antibodies showing we had the disease and survived with no real problems.
They have that embarrassing data on young people from 0-24 years with basically antibodies and never having any real problems from CDC. Yet they closed down K-12 and colleges with no one really sick from Covid 19.
Now. they apparently do not want test for antibodies in seniors. What if more than 50% of us have the antibodies and are healthy seniors walking and doing things.
Pandemic minus the dam equal Panic.
Similarly with the spreading at the funerals in SW GA in and around Albany, which was a hotspot for our state, on the hard to square part.
There’s still a heckuva lot we don’t know about this thing.
When the Stanford study was released, their major point was that the number of cases was 50-80 times that which was reported. Yes it was only 3% of the total population, but it was still much higher than was thought. That’s consistent with the finding above that so many are asymptomatic although I was somewhat surprised it wasn’t even higher.
People who are asymptomatic have very low viral shedding. The symptoms are the vectors, coughing, sneezing, various ways to eject bodily fluids.. we don’t have to mention.
Folks aren’t feeling it because their immune system is fighting it off.
I wish you could have posted this with a 100pt font
I’ve been wondering why the Chinese spent billions creating a virus that can mimic a bad cold... and some times - not even that...
On some level it makes sense... I’m not there yet.
Will be interesting to find out the truth about this bug somewhere down the road...but Big Pharma will likely skew a LOT of the data in the "Final Report(s)"...
Some interesting statistics here, excluding Michigan who isn’t wanting to give that information out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.