““At this point it’s just so strange that they’re unwilling to give us the information,” said Michael Joseph Mina, a physician and professor of epidemiology at Harvard. “It makes people start thinking things like, ‘Was the president the super-spreader?’... If there was no nefarious activity going on, then they should have no problem answering this question.””
Nefarious? Even in his fervered fantasy scenario that Trump has been infected for a month and spread it as the “super-spreader” (these Harvard Profs sure are articulate), it wouldn’t be nefarious.
Unless he’s saying Trump deliberately spread it knowing he was infected.
Which is probably what psycho bubble elites think.
...the super-spreader...
___________________________
Do we have incontrovertible evidence of the existence of so-called *super-spreaders”, defined as testing positive via PCR, but otherwise asymptomatic?
Infected persons can transmit the virus, Ok. Is that only when they have symptoms? Is a positive test evidence of transmission capability?
Is detection via a PCR test the same as being infectious?
Serious questions.