They have been claiming that people have been asymptomatic since before we had any testing, And, they’ve been claiming this was that we have testing. Are they testing people silly billy that have no symptoms?
Comments (24)
sorted by:
They have been claiming that people have been asymptomatic since before we had any testing, And, they’ve been claiming this was that we have testing. Are they testing people silly billy that have no symptoms?
Exactly. The whole "more contagious!" scare tactic was based on the virus being novel (automatic high initial R0) and the fact that it has a "longer incubation period". How much longer? Well SARS had a median incubation of 4 days and SARS2 has a median incubation period of, wait for it... FIVE days. Yep a whopping whole one day longer.
That's all based on early reports with little reliable data of course. The biggest lies, as always, are lies of omission. Like the fact that R0 isn't a constant factor of the virus, but a dependent variable that's derived from the number of unexposed people, environment, social, and hygiene factors. So The longer the pandemic spreads, the LOWER R0 must go. Also, the R0 in a place like NYC with its high population density and heavy reliance on public transportation would be drastically higher than anywhere else in the country.
The very concept of a global R0 is utter nonsense. Averaging together vastly different local population values does not yield a useful global value.
They’re saying it’s three times more transmissible than the flu.
That's a misunderstanding of the term R0 (R-naught) used by epidemiologists in their computer models.
What they didn't tell you that the R0 value was initially assumed to be so high purely because there is no prior exposure. R0 is not a constant. The more people that have already been exposed, the fewer people can get it, so R0 MUST go down as the pandemic continues.
What's more, it's not simply the virus itself, but environmental and social factors which determine how many people an infected person can pass it on too. So the R0 for NYC is higher than smaller towns. Whether or not people take public transportation, for instance, has a bigger influence on presumed transmission rates than the virus does.
In simplest terms, all that R0 number means is the average number of uninfected people they assume each infected person will infect. It's a purely speculative educated guess to throw into the computer models. It's "three times higher than the flu", because they assumed a number that was three times higher than the number they put into their models to yield a result somewhat similar to real-world flue spread scenarios.
I’m truly thankful for all of the people here and the knowledge they have. Thank you for explaining in such a way we can all understand.
they're talking about that serum test for the antibodies your immune system makes when it comes into contact with the virus.
They didn’t have that testing two months ago when they were saying people were asymptomatic.
This incident is replete with lies. The date is far reaching.
What?
Bill gates will drink some of ur blood. He can tell by the flavonoids.
Spez: phone autocorrected flavor to flavonoids. Makes no sense. Im leaving it.
Fuck that, it's perfect
they did do a few local random tests to get an idea of how many asymptomatic carriers might be out there
Iceland was the first to do it, finding a significant portion of their population had already been exposed but had no symptoms
until now we didn't have the luxury of testing at random on a large scale but we are almost there, since not every big city had a massive uptick like NYC did
we can very soon start serology and tracing programs that will inform just how soon we can open up with data to prove we are way over the hump in terms of penetration/exposure
They also tested 100% of the people on one of those infected cruise ships. Some people we not infected at all. Others caught it but never showed symptoms.
Excellent,point. Thank you.
There's an awful lot about this thing that's based on blind assumptions. The truth is they didn't "know" prior to there being testing. They assumed it because it's rather common with a virus of this type. The real kicker is that at the exact same time they were warning of asymptomatic "carriers" they were also saying "no one is naturally immune" which directly conflicts the first assumption.
It's a circular tautology. No one is "naturally immune" to something they've never been exposed to, but the second you're exposed your immune system starts the process of making you immune naturally, so naturally immune people happen pretty quickly.
However, since testing HAS become available, they can confirm a certain number of asymptomatic people have been exposed because we forced some people into quarantine following suspected exposure and refused to let them out until they were tested.
The kicker there is that the most common type of test, the PCR test does not determine whether or not someone can spread the virus. It only tests for fragments of viral RNA. So the insistence that they still could be spreading it even though they're asymptomatic is still largely assumption.
The important thing to understand is that most of the early information was NOT coming from virologists, it was coming from epidemiologists. Which means it was almost entirely assumptions being fed through a video game like computer model that's practically engineered to spit out alarmist numbers.
As real virologist and doctors and healthcare workers come up with more real world numbers, all of the computer models are invariably "revised down". This has happened during every outbreak since epidemiological computer modelling became a thing.
Thank you.
They test to see if the immune system has the antibody to fight off the virus. If it exists in a person then it means that they previously had it. Most of these tests seem to only take 10-15 minutes to get the results.
They don't use the same test that is used to determine if someone has the virus.
https://twitter.com/emlitofnote/status/1247223367746256896
When did these test start?
Well very recently in the US but China has been making them for awhile. Its very questionable how reliable the results are but they are right some of the time.
Antibodies. They test for a specific antibody that is produced when recovering from a virus.
If you had the virus and recovered they will test you. If testing becomes mainstream, anyone who suspects they had it may get tested.
Asymptomatic just means you aren’t displaying symptoms yet during an incubation period.
Iceland tested a large portion of their population and found 50% of people with Kung Flu were asymptomatic.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/04/10/coronavirus-covid-19-small-nations-iceland-big-data/2959797001/
Titers?
I'm assuming they are attributing flu like symptoms with negative flu A B and strep screens as being the China flu, but that doesn't answer you question exactly.
Great question.
In about a week they will start doing antibody tests which will tell if you have ever had the virus. The FDA is in the process of approving them. They said they should be able to scale them up to the tens of millions fairly quickly so a lot of people can get tested.