Fauci is a political hack, and not a real scientist.
Here is Kary Mullis (winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and inventor of the PCR) severely criticizing Anthony Fauci, saying "Fauci doesn't know anything about anything", and that he is a "liar with an agenda".
Mullis also stated that PCR "cannot tell you if you are sick" and diagnose a disease.
By the way, Mullis "conveniently" died in August of 2019, only a few months before the supposed "covid-19 pandemic" began. Hmmmmm
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Do you even understand why PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick?"
I assume this video is mostly regarding HIV, given the timing. Do you even understand why, in the US, western blot is used to confirm the diagnosis when ELISA is positive? And why PCR is rarely used? And what the difference in ELISA/WESTERN BLOT vs PCR is? Knowing that would help answer the initial question. You seem to think it's surprising to everyone that PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick," and you somehow think because it doesn't do so then this "supposed pandemic" doesn't exist. So let me ask, if a person has a positive PCR test for covid-19, what does that mean to you? What exactly does that test tell you? What are the various possibilities?
I honestly don't know much about Fauci, and don't really care. But i know enough about humans and their opinions to know I'm not forming an opinion of the man and his abilities or biases or motivations based on one man's opinion in a video made decades ago.
Do you even understand why PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick?"
I assume this video is mostly regarding HIV, given the timing. Do you even understand why, in the US, western blot is used to confirm the diagnosis when ELISA is positive? And why PCR is rarely used? And what the difference in ELISA/WESTERN BLOT vs PCR is? Knowing that would help answer the initial question. You seem to think it's surprising to everyone that PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick," and you somehow think because it doesn't do so then this "supposed pandemic" doesn't exist. So let me ask, if a person has a positive PCR test for covid-19, what does that mean to you? What exactly does that test tell you? What are the various possibilities?
I honestly don't know much about Fauci, and don't really care. But i know enough about humans and their opinions to know I'm not forming an opinion of the man and his abilities or biases or motivations based on one man's opinion in a video made decades ago.
I'm not forming my opinion on Fauci just on Mullis' opinion. Although Mullis' opinion is a very good reason to not trust Fauci. There are numerous other reasons to not trust Fauci, including his close ties to Bill Gates (and their associates) and his agenda to mass vaccinate the world's population (and the money to be made doing it). Also, Fauci has flip-flopped, contradicted himself, and lied many times over the last several months, regarding "covid-19". For instance, early on he was telling us that we "did not need to wear masks" and that wearing masks "was not effective at preventing spread of disease". Then, a few months into this, he completely flipped and started pushing mask-wearing.
I'm not an expert on PCR, but Kary Mullis is the inventor of PCR. So I think if anyone knows what it can and cannot do, it's him. I think we can trust him when says it cannot tell you if you are sick -- especially given what we are now learning about the PCR test and how unreliable it is.
Yes, the video is apparently from a documentary around 20+ years ago on HIV. In the video, after the clip of him talking about Fauci, it then goes on to talk about how the testing for HIV was flawed.
The bottom line is that the PCR test for covid-19 is completely unreliable. There are TONS of false positives...probably far more false positives than true positives.
For example, an Austrian Member of Parliament recently administered a COVID-19 PCR test to the beverage Coca Cola in parliament before his colleagues, and it tested positive for "covid-19".
And several months back, in Tanzania they used a PCR test on a goat and a piece of fruit, and they tested positive for "covid-19":
Live PCR test in Parliament: Coca Cola tests COVID-19 positive
In May, Tanzania suspended the head of its national health laboratory in charge of testing coronavirus and ordered an investigation, after President John Magufuli questioned the tests' accuracy.
Magufuli said the imported test kits were faulty as they had returned positive results on a goat and a pawpaw fruit among several non-human samples submitted for testing, with technicians left deliberately unaware of their origins.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Shout out to my parents who thought covid was a media hoax and gave it to me. Thankfully, I have the worst case of the three of us and being younger I can deal with it a little better but this is far and away the worst I've ever felt in my life.
Shout out to my parents who thought covid was a media hoax and gave it to me. Thankfully, I have the worst case of the three of us and being younger I can deal with it a little better but this is far and away the worst I've ever felt in my life.
Yikes man sorry to hear this!
How is it presenting for you? What are your worst symptoms?
Apparently CNN said we in NC are one of 6 states in a Covid "crisis". Interesting...... are we out of hospital beds or doctors? Can anyone let me know why we are in crisis 44 other states are not?
Do you even understand why PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick?"
I assume this video is mostly regarding HIV, given the timing. Do you even understand why, in the US, western blot is used to confirm the diagnosis when ELISA is positive? And why PCR is rarely used? And what the difference in ELISA/WESTERN BLOT vs PCR is? Knowing that would help answer the initial question. You seem to think it's surprising to everyone that PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick," and you somehow think because it doesn't do so then this "supposed pandemic" doesn't exist. So let me ask, if a person has a positive PCR test for covid-19, what does that mean to you? What exactly does that test tell you? What are the various possibilities?
I honestly don't know much about Fauci, and don't really care. But i know enough about humans and their opinions to know I'm not forming an opinion of the man and his abilities or biases or motivations based on one man's opinion in a video made decades ago.
I'm not forming my opinion on Fauci just on Mullis' opinion. Although Mullis' opinion is a very good reason to not trust Fauci. There are numerous other reasons to not trust Fauci, including his close ties to Bill Gates (and their associates) and his agenda to mass vaccinate the world's population (and the money to be made doing it). Also, Fauci has flip-flopped, contradicted himself, and lied many times over the last several months, regarding "covid-19". For instance, early on he was telling us that we "did not need to wear masks" and that wearing masks "was not effective at preventing spread of disease". Then, a few months into this, he completely flipped and started pushing mask-wearing.
I'm not an expert on PCR, but Kary Mullis is the inventor of PCR. So I think if anyone knows what it can and cannot do, it's him. I think we can trust him when says it cannot tell you if you are sick -- especially given what we are now learning about the PCR test and how unreliable it is.
Yes, the video is apparently from a documentary around 20+ years ago on HIV. In the video, after the clip of him talking about Fauci, it then goes on to talk about how the testing for HIV was flawed.
The bottom line is that the PCR test for covid-19 is completely unreliable. There are TONS of false positives...probably far more false positives than true positives.
For example, an Austrian Member of Parliament recently administered a COVID-19 PCR test to the beverage Coca Cola in parliament before his colleagues, and it tested positive for "covid-19".
And several months back, in Tanzania they used a PCR test on a goat and a piece of fruit, and they tested positive for "covid-19":
Live PCR test in Parliament: Coca Cola tests COVID-19 positive
In May, Tanzania suspended the head of its national health laboratory in charge of testing coronavirus and ordered an investigation, after President John Magufuli questioned the tests' accuracy.
Magufuli said the imported test kits were faulty as they had returned positive results on a goat and a pawpaw fruit among several non-human samples submitted for testing, with technicians left deliberately unaware of their origins.
That test done by the Austrian MOP was not even a PCR test. You understand that, right? That was a rapid test that looks for the presence of either antigens or antibodies. Do you even understand the difference? Do you even realize the idiot did the test incorrectly, that he's not trained to do the test, and he didnt perform it in a lab using a buffer solution? And you question why it wasn't reliable even though you had no clue what it was?
So... What is the false negative and false positive rate of PCR for cv-19? What contributes to these rates? Why do you say the false positive rate of pcr is higher than the true positive rate? Why would this be so? Where do you get such false information? Can you provide such evidence?
PCR doesn't diagnose "sickness." That was never its intention or purpose. But you implicitly trust the inventor while calling it a bad invention.
Shout out to my parents who thought covid was a media hoax and gave it to me. Thankfully, I have the worst case of the three of us and being younger I can deal with it a little better but this is far and away the worst I've ever felt in my life.
Let us know how you are doing. Prayers your way man!
The fact he is a regular on CNN tells you ALL you need to know about him. He had/has an agenda. Wait until Sleepy and Willie's Side Piece take over. All of a sudden you will see the economies open up and the businesses to go back to normal. They are waiting on January 21st to let everyone know that "all is well" because we now have democrats in the White House. This more than anything should show intelligent Americans where the priorities of democrats actually lie.
Last I heard, that date was Nov. 3, 2020; now it's moved. (Nov. 3...on here in this thread) Fauci actually expects it to get worse over the next few weeks (inc. Jan. 21); so do I. If Fauci can find the time, he'll tell what he thinks about the virus and try to help people, help one another get rid of it to anyone that wants to listen. Any network or station!
I can't figure out why the HACK would waste his time going to Holy Cross and Cornell and graduate 1st in his class with a Doctor of Medicine degree?
In 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-pr1984-12][12][/url] In 1974, he became head of the Clinical Physiology Section, LCI, and in 1980 was appointed Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of NIAID, a position he still holds as of 2020.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-Grady-5][5][/url] In that role he is responsible for an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research on infectious and immune-mediated illnesses.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-pr1984-12][12][/url] He has turned down several offers to lead his agency's parent, the NIH, and has been at the forefront of U.S. efforts to contend with viral diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS, the 2009 swine flu pandemic, MERS, Ebola and COVID-19.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-13][13][/url]
He played a significant role in the early 2000s in creating the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-14][14][/url] and in driving development of biodefense drugs and vaccines following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-15][15][/url] Fauci has been a visiting professor at many medical centers, and has received 30 honorary doctorates from universities in the U.S. and abroad.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-Cited-16][16][/url]
The fact he is a regular on CNN tells you ALL you need to know about him. He had/has an agenda. Wait until Sleepy and Willie's Side Piece take over. All of a sudden you will see the economies open up and the businesses to go back to normal. They are waiting on January 21st to let everyone know that "all is well" because we now have democrats in the White House. This more than anything should show intelligent Americans where the priorities of democrats actually lie.
Last I heard, that date was Nov. 3, 2020; now it's moved. (Nov. 3...on here in this thread) Fauci actually expects it to get worse over the next few weeks (inc. Jan. 21); so do I. If Fauci can find the time, he'll tell what he thinks about the virus and try to help people, help one another get rid of it to anyone that wants to listen. Any network or station!
I can't figure out why the HACK would waste his time going to Holy Cross and Cornell and graduate 1st in his class with a Doctor of Medicine degree?
In 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-pr1984-12][12][/url] In 1974, he became head of the Clinical Physiology Section, LCI, and in 1980 was appointed Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of NIAID, a position he still holds as of 2020.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-Grady-5][5][/url] In that role he is responsible for an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research on infectious and immune-mediated illnesses.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-pr1984-12][12][/url] He has turned down several offers to lead his agency's parent, the NIH, and has been at the forefront of U.S. efforts to contend with viral diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS, the 2009 swine flu pandemic, MERS, Ebola and COVID-19.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-13][13][/url]
He played a significant role in the early 2000s in creating the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-14][14][/url] and in driving development of biodefense drugs and vaccines following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-15][15][/url] Fauci has been a visiting professor at many medical centers, and has received 30 honorary doctorates from universities in the U.S. and abroad.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#cite_note-Cited-16][16][/url]
Apparently CNN said we in NC are one of 6 states in a Covid "crisis". Interesting...... are we out of hospital beds or doctors? Can anyone let me know why we are in crisis 44 other states are not?
Shout out to my parents who thought covid was a media hoax and gave it to me. Thankfully, I have the worst case of the three of us and being younger I can deal with it a little better but this is far and away the worst I've ever felt in my life.
Yikes man sorry to hear this!
How is it presenting for you? What are your worst symptoms?
I have a bad cough, headache, muscle soreness, congestion, no sense of taste or smell, and diarrhea has been coming and going. The cough and soreness have probably been the worst ones but I really miss being able to taste things. Guess I'm going on a diet now since it all tastes the same.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
Shout out to my parents who thought covid was a media hoax and gave it to me. Thankfully, I have the worst case of the three of us and being younger I can deal with it a little better but this is far and away the worst I've ever felt in my life.
Sorry to hear - praying for your quick recovery. My best friend had a similar experience. Twin sisters who are covid deniers/ media hoaxers showed up for Thanksgiving sick -he, his wife, and both his mom and dad all got it- said it was the worst 5 days of his life. His mom ended up in intensive care.
Side note - GP - seriously, fauci isn't a scientist and this is media-hyped and no worse than the flu, on top of flat earth stuff, makes me embarrassed we share a degree from the same university....
Do you even understand why PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick?"
I assume this video is mostly regarding HIV, given the timing. Do you even understand why, in the US, western blot is used to confirm the diagnosis when ELISA is positive? And why PCR is rarely used? And what the difference in ELISA/WESTERN BLOT vs PCR is? Knowing that would help answer the initial question. You seem to think it's surprising to everyone that PCR doesn't "tell you if you're sick," and you somehow think because it doesn't do so then this "supposed pandemic" doesn't exist. So let me ask, if a person has a positive PCR test for covid-19, what does that mean to you? What exactly does that test tell you? What are the various possibilities?
I honestly don't know much about Fauci, and don't really care. But i know enough about humans and their opinions to know I'm not forming an opinion of the man and his abilities or biases or motivations based on one man's opinion in a video made decades ago.
I'm not forming my opinion on Fauci just on Mullis' opinion. Although Mullis' opinion is a very good reason to not trust Fauci. There are numerous other reasons to not trust Fauci, including his close ties to Bill Gates (and their associates) and his agenda to mass vaccinate the world's population (and the money to be made doing it). Also, Fauci has flip-flopped, contradicted himself, and lied many times over the last several months, regarding "covid-19". For instance, early on he was telling us that we "did not need to wear masks" and that wearing masks "was not effective at preventing spread of disease". Then, a few months into this, he completely flipped and started pushing mask-wearing.
I'm not an expert on PCR, but Kary Mullis is the inventor of PCR. So I think if anyone knows what it can and cannot do, it's him. I think we can trust him when says it cannot tell you if you are sick -- especially given what we are now learning about the PCR test and how unreliable it is.
Yes, the video is apparently from a documentary around 20+ years ago on HIV. In the video, after the clip of him talking about Fauci, it then goes on to talk about how the testing for HIV was flawed.
The bottom line is that the PCR test for covid-19 is completely unreliable. There are TONS of false positives...probably far more false positives than true positives.
For example, an Austrian Member of Parliament recently administered a COVID-19 PCR test to the beverage Coca Cola in parliament before his colleagues, and it tested positive for "covid-19".
And several months back, in Tanzania they used a PCR test on a goat and a piece of fruit, and they tested positive for "covid-19":
Live PCR test in Parliament: Coca Cola tests COVID-19 positive
In May, Tanzania suspended the head of its national health laboratory in charge of testing coronavirus and ordered an investigation, after President John Magufuli questioned the tests' accuracy.
Magufuli said the imported test kits were faulty as they had returned positive results on a goat and a pawpaw fruit among several non-human samples submitted for testing, with technicians left deliberately unaware of their origins.
That test done by the Austrian MOP was not even a PCR test. You understand that, right? That was a rapid test that looks for the presence of either antigens or antibodies. Do you even understand the difference? Do you even realize the idiot did the test incorrectly, that he's not trained to do the test, and he didnt perform it in a lab using a buffer solution? And you question why it wasn't reliable even though you had no clue what it was?
So... What is the false negative and false positive rate of PCR for cv-19? What contributes to these rates? Why do you say the false positive rate of pcr is higher than the true positive rate? Why would this be so? Where do you get such false information? Can you provide such evidence?
PCR doesn't diagnose "sickness." That was never its intention or purpose. But you implicitly trust the inventor while calling it a bad invention.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I don't think that one had been mentioned, I think he was talking about another study that came to the same conclusion.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
Obviously, my experience is only anecdotal, but this really seems to be the case in our rural area. We are testing both asymptomatic with an exposure and symptomatic with or without exposure. Most transmission so far from what we can tell is coming from symptomatic folks spreading it before symptoms started or just not caring and going out anyways.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
I'm not a smart man but isn't this just, well. common sense. I mean, to pass the virus you need to be shedding the virus. Common sense would dictate that if you're asymptomatic, you're probably at worst shedding a tiny amount of virus- if any at all.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
I'm not a smart man but isn't this just, well. common sense. I mean, to pass the virus you need to be shedding the virus. Common sense would dictate that if you're asymptomatic, you're probably at worst shedding a tiny amount of virus- if any at all.
It would seem to be common sense, but with this being a novel virus, doctors and scientists are still learning a lot about the virus. One of the concerns with the mRNA vaccines is that people may be asymptomatic, even after getting the vaccine. These studies seem to indicate that this should not be a big issue and people who are asymptomatic will have a low instance of viral transmission.
Also, we know from lots of data that younger people (under the age of 15), can be asymptomatic and the concern was they would transmit it to their parents, grand parents, and teachers. Based on these studies, the risk of asymptomatic young people transmitting the virus to older people is remote. A few weeks ago, I included some information from Dr. Ohl (infectious disease physician at Wake Forest Baptist Hospital) regarding transmission in schools. He said transmission to teachers was coming from teacher to teacher interactions during breaks and lunch and not from student to teacher interactions. These studies provide more evidence that kids should be in school and the risk of transmission for asymptomatic kids is low.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
Obviously, my experience is only anecdotal, but this really seems to be the case in our rural area. We are testing both asymptomatic with an exposure and symptomatic with or without exposure. Most transmission so far from what we can tell is coming from symptomatic folks spreading it before symptoms started or just not caring and going out anyways.
Thanks for sharing!
So you are now saying that your personal science is different than what you were just telling us mere weeks ago? Thanks for the update!
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
I'm not a smart man but isn't this just, well. common sense. I mean, to pass the virus you need to be shedding the virus. Common sense would dictate that if you're asymptomatic, you're probably at worst shedding a tiny amount of virus- if any at all.
Yes. But that is not what everybody has been telling us for the last 9+ months... time for that National Mask Mandate next!
The virus isn't going away until we reach herd immunity, the vaccines should help achieve that faster now hopefully.
One of the reasons I haven't paid much attention to the repeated attempts at comparisons with other countries as a way to determine how well we are dealing with the pandemic is because I don't trust most of the largest countries in the world to accurately report their numbers.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
I'm not a smart man but isn't this just, well. common sense. I mean, to pass the virus you need to be shedding the virus. Common sense would dictate that if you're asymptomatic, you're probably at worst shedding a tiny amount of virus- if any at all.
Your common sense may be exactly right in many cases. But it's just not quite that easy with human disease. There's very little black and white. We all know people who have seen it go through their families when one person tests positive, and it feels like it happens when they're all asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic.
There are so many factors involved: amount of virus shedding, time of exposure, inoculation size (remember exposure to small amounts of virus over an extended period can be like one big sneeze in the face), host defenses (how good is your immune system at the time of exposure?), Infectious properties of the pathogen, blah, blah, blah.
It still worries me if I'm exposed to an asymptomatic individual. Are the chances I'm gonna get it low? Yep. Are the chances zero? Nope. Is the infected person truly asymptomatic or do they just not recognize minor symptoms? Are they pre-symtomatic and shedding more and more virus as their viral load is increasing just before getting the sniffles or wiped out? Am I post-call and wiped out myself and my immune system is lagging a little and i just can fight off a small exposure?
The studies are great and they are sorely needed. The effort is great. But, still so much is unknown or simply not understood, and the studies, while offering insight to guide us, aren't really Level 1 evidence or dogma. So when new info is different from "what we've been told for 9 months," just keep in mind the myriad reasons that's true. You have to take each piece of info provided, digest it instead of run with it, and take it for what it's worth.
That study would seem to echo the study that Daviewolf referenced earlier. Will be interesting to follow.
My bad. Did realize it had already been mentioned.
I did not reference this study. The study I referenced was a metadata study conducted out of the University of Florida. The results were similar in that it found the chance of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus is effectively 0. The spread we are seeing is coming from people who are symptomatic that are continuing to go out in public or they are being visited by people and are spreading the virus to others.
Obviously, my experience is only anecdotal, but this really seems to be the case in our rural area. We are testing both asymptomatic with an exposure and symptomatic with or without exposure. Most transmission so far from what we can tell is coming from symptomatic folks spreading it before symptoms started or just not caring and going out anyways.
Thanks for sharing!
So you are now saying that your personal science is different than what you were just telling us mere weeks ago? Thanks for the update!
No, that is not what I am saying. Just as Mormad has been saying, this is a novel virus. We started from scratch learning about it and information changes daily based on new data. We had small bits of data at first that seemed to show asymptomatic spread. As we have more and more cases, we have more data. We had to make inferences based on the little amount of information that we had 9 months ago. The limits of asymptomatic spread is a new study just released days ago.
At our office, we are somewhat conducting our own "study" to see where we can attempt to slow down transmission as it is rampant in our community currently. Asymptomatic spread does occur, at least locally, but is not as significant as the pre-symptomatic or symptomatic spread.
If you understand how medical studies work, we tend to not trust small studies with limited amount of participants, because this allows biases to creep in. The more participants and higher amounts of randomization of participants, the more accurate the information we can glean from it. However, when you have a novel disease or illness that is of national or global concern, then you have to use the readily available information no matter how small it is.
This is how science works. We learn and learn and learn from repeating studies. The higher the repeatability, the better the data. Take the politics out of the data. If you "go looking" for a specific point in the data or only data that agrees with your point, you will find it. Providers, researchers, scientists, etc. are taught to specifically not do that.
Plus, I do not remember even discussing asymptomatic spread for quite some time, specifically just weeks ago. You may remember differently and that's okay.
On a happy note, my son's days of getting tested for Covid every other day are going to end after tomorrow for a few weeks. Since June, they estimate he and his teammates have each been tested between 50-60 times. All tests have been a nasal swap test and approximately a third of these have been both nostrils. Recently, he was tested four straight days, due to coming in contact with someone who had the virus. My son had his mask on and the contact was brief, but he was required to isolate for 5 days after this limited contact and he had to be tested daily.
He will actually be tested tomorrow, after his bowl game is over. Given how well he has followed the protocols, I am not overly concerned with tomorrow's game or testing. Tomorrow after the game will be the first time since June that we can talk face-to-face without masks on. Since June, we have only talked face-to-face when we were both wearing masks and we never got closer than 10 feet from each other. As you can imagine, we are excited to have him home for a few weeks and he is very happy to finally leave the team bubble for a while.
