Beer Virus V

[SheepDog4Life]

How so? You asked "What % of people transmitting Covid are showing signs of illness?"

My answer is pretty much all of them considering that asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to be the ones spreading the diseases- even to close contacts.

Asymptomatic means they are positive and NEVER develop symptoms.

PRE-symptomatic means they are positive and CURRENTLY do not exhibit symptoms, but for about 24-48 hours prior to symptoms showing up, they ARE contagious.

The literature is pretty clear about this.

Currently, other than time, there is no way to determine if someone who is positive without symptoms is ASYMPTOMATIC or PRE-SYMPTOMATIC. They are different and there is currently no crystal ball to tell them apart... one of the two is contagious for the two days prior to symptoms as well as the first five days after symptoms appear.

I personally know 6 people who contracted COVID (all developed symptoms) from one PRE-symptomatic individual at a single event of about 80-90 people. I, personally, was at the event and interacted with the PRE-symptomatic individual multiple times. That first person had no symptoms until the next day. He was not "sick" at the event.

The other 6 developed full symptoms, including loss of taste/smell, 5 days after the event.

You are wasting you efforts my friend.
Just saying.

Ditto, CM.

There are a lot of valid points that can be made on either side of this issue, conflating ASYMPTOMATIC with PRE-SYMPTOMATIC isn't one of them, IMO.

 

[chipbennett]

Just what is the reality difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic?
And does this so-called difference matter?

Pre-Symptomatic people become Symptomatic people. Asymptomatic people never become Symptomatic people.

Yes, there is a meaningful difference. Since Pre-Symptomatic people eventually become Symptomatic people, a means of detection of their contagion exists. With Asymptomatic people, no such means of detection exists.

 

[nonobaddog]

Pre-Symptomatic people become Symptomatic people. Asymptomatic people never become Symptomatic people.

Yes, there is a meaningful difference. Since Pre-Symptomatic people eventually become Symptomatic people, a means of detection of their contagion exists. With Asymptomatic people, no such means of detection exists.

There will be a difference in the future but at the time we are talking about a person there is no way to differentiate between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic because pre-symptomatic people are asymptomatic by definition.

What value does this indeterminate state add?

 

[BugI02]

Whether or not we should lock down is another debate lockdowns have a lot of different definitions.

As far as why my question and your response are not connected there are two reasons

The first reason is that in medical terms asymptomatic is not the same thing as pre-symptomatic. The second problem is that even when we're talking about asymptomatic people a small percentage of them could theoretically be spreading quite a bit of disease even if most of them don't spread it.

Hypotheticals that, while supporting a preferred intervention, lack any proof or even evidence from a properly structured study. Too many people start from the conclusion that masks and hiding will keep them safe and then work backwards from there. I remain unconvinced, and wonder how much failure it will actually require before you reconsider

In recent years the little people have been corralled towards service industry jobs as good jobs in manufacturing dried up. Now, too many who find themselves surviving relatively well,in my opinion, seem willing to sacrifice those jobs and those people on unproven or untried schemes that they arguably hope will maintain their own situation in status quo. I absolutely understand that, but can't countenance trying to put a pretty, altruistic face on the effort

Mitigation just seems adjacent to communism, in that failure of results is never accepted nor even considered, the blame is always placed on improper implementation

Demonstrate that you can save yourself before you claim you can save me

 

[drillsgt]

Pre-Symptomatic people become Symptomatic people. Asymptomatic people never become Symptomatic people.

Yes, there is a meaningful difference. Since Pre-Symptomatic people eventually become Symptomatic people, a means of detection of their contagion exists. With Asymptomatic people, no such means of detection exists.

I'm not sure how we went down this rabbit hole lol besides the fact the covid lovers don't like any good news. Both groups have covid, one group will get treated/quarantined the other it looks like aren't as infectious as originally thought so that's the good news.

 

[BugI02]

New Zealand is a pretty open society, and they seem to be faring well in regards to mitigation and downright elimination of spread.

https://bvi.org/new-zealand-announc...atients-will-be-forcibly-placed-gregg-jarrett

New Zealand announces ‘quarantine camps’ where positive patients will be forcibly placed
With only 25 coronavirus deaths among a population of nearly 5 million, medical officers are now being directed to manage all positive confirmed cases in a quarantine camp.
New Zealand is taking the term ‘lockdown’ to a whole new level.


With only 25 coronavirus deaths among a population of nearly 5 million, medical officers are now being directed to manage all positive confirmed cases in a quarantine camp, according to the Director-General of Health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield.


“I am now directing medical officers of health that all confirmed cases are to be managed in a quarantine facility. Now this is different to how positive cases were managed when we were last at levels 4 and indeed 3, and shows how serious we are about limiting any risk of ongoing transmission even in self isolation and including to others in the household. This will apply to any cases and also close family members who might be at risk as appropriate,” Bloomfield said.


The nation has 32 managed isolation and quarantine facilities with operational capacity for 6260 people, Stuff reports.


But that’s not the worst part.


Patients will be held against their will at the quarantine camps until testing negative for the virus.

 

[chipbennett]

There will be a difference in the future but at the time we are talking about a person there is no way to differentiate between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic because pre-symptomatic people are asymptomatic by definition.

What value does this indeterminate state add?

Again: detection.

See SD4L's post, above. If the pre-symptomatic carrier had instead been asymptomatic, he would not now know how or from whom the people to whom Covid was transmitted became infected.

 

[dusty88]

There will be a difference in the future but at the time we are talking about a person there is no way to differentiate between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic because pre-symptomatic people are asymptomatic by definition.

What value does this indeterminate state add?

It came up because there was confusion in an earlier comment in thinking that "most asymptomatic people don't spread the disease" equates to claiming that the disease isn't spread by people without symptoms.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not sure how we went down this rabbit hole lol besides the fact the covid lovers don't like any good news. Both groups have covid, one group will get treated/quarantined the other it looks like aren't as infectious as originally thought so that's the good news.

I was responding to a string of comments that started with the premise of, "historically, we have exercised the practice/behavior of, 'if you are sick, stay home,'" to which was replied: "and what of people who are sick [i.e. contagious/transmitting] but don't know they are sick [i.e. are pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic]?"

The underlying presumption of that latter question is that not only sick (symptomatic) people should "stay home", but so should non-sick people, because there is some risk that they may in fact be sick, yet pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic.

Past, present, and (likely) future, I fundamentally disagree with that presumption.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Again: detection.

See SD4L's post, above. If the pre-symptomatic carrier had instead been asymptomatic, he would not now know how or from whom the people to whom Covid was transmitted became infected.

Yup, and, most likely, no one else would have become infected because asymptomatic spread is rare to non-existent.

The 24-48 hours previous to symptoms showing up, is...

 

[foszoe]

You are NOT stating my position as clearly expressed, you conveniently left out the "open society" in my point. Mitigation works in small situations, generally for shorter time periods like an operating room for a surgery, less so at a more exposed nursing home but some gains can be made, but is very impotent in open society, and the efforts are making things worse on several fronts.

Fronts many here never acknowledge...

Well if you think Phase2 is talking about a society other than ours we can ask him. What society do you think Phase2 is talking about?

 

[dusty88]

Hypotheticals that, while supporting a preferred intervention, lack any proof or even evidence from a properly structured study. Too many people start from the conclusion that masks and hiding will keep them safe and then work backwards from there. I remain unconvinced, and wonder how much failure it will actually require before you reconsider

In recent years the little people have been corralled towards service industry jobs as good jobs in manufacturing dried up. Now, too many who find themselves surviving relatively well,in my opinion, seem willing to sacrifice those jobs and those people on unproven or untried schemes that they arguably hope will maintain their own situation in status quo. I absolutely understand that, but can't countenance trying to put a pretty, altruistic face on the effort

Mitigation just seems adjacent to communism, in that failure of results is never accepted nor even considered, the blame is always placed on improper implementation

Demonstrate that you can save yourself before you claim you can save me

I think this is an example of you reading some intent into my statement that I did not make.

and I have no idea what "failure" you refer to or what position you think I should "reconsider"

The topic at hand was whether a simple claim of "not many of the asymptomatic people are spreading disease" is the same as saying that "the disease isn't being spread significantly by asymptomatic people". It's not the same claim at all. If asymptomatic spread exists, you need to not only know how often but to consider what the impact of that is. If a few asymptomatic people can still set off super-spreader events, then it's significant.

 

[nonobaddog]

Asymptomatic people never become Symptomatic people.

No. Asymptomatic means without symptoms - period. There is no implication to the future. It is scientifically unacceptable to try to change the definition of a word for convenience. This just muddies up communication. Clear and accurate communication is important.

Maybe you need a different word but don't try to change asymptomatic to something it does not mean.

 

[chipbennett]

No. Asymptomatic means without symptoms - period. There is no implication to the future. It is scientifically unacceptable to try to change the definition of a word for convenience. This just muddies up communication. Clear and accurate communication is important.

Maybe you need a different word but don't try to change asymptomatic to something it does not mean.

This is merely being argumentative, to no beneficial end. I'm stating what terms I and others are using and how they are being used. I'm not going to debate how those terms are used. If you choose to use different terminology, more power to you. But I'm not going to debate terminology.

 

[foszoe]

No. Asymptomatic means without symptoms - period. There is no implication to the future. It is scientifically unacceptable to try to change the definition of a word for convenience. This just muddies up communication. Clear and accurate communication is important.

Maybe you need a different word but don't try to change asymptomatic to something it does not mean.

A quick Google search shows asymptomatic means has the infection but does not and will not develop them later.

 

[NKBJ]

Was listening to an elderly fellow yesterday that brought it back from Hong Kong a year ago.
He said he put silver water in the nebulizer and cured himself.

 

[T.Lex]

Isn't this a bit of calculating the number of dancing angels on a pin? I mean, the most thorough mitigation efforts would account for symptomatic people (self-isolating/hospitalization as necessary) and a-/pre-/non-symptomatic people who could spread the disease, right? For the latter, things like masks (maybe), social distancing, hygiene, testing, and even contact tracing seem to be appropriate mitigation techniques. There are certainly more extreme measures that are debatable, but it seems like even INGO could agree on a baseline for reasonable precautions to protect against people who may be spreading it without realizing it.

 

[dusty88]

Isn't this a bit of calculating the number of dancing angels on a pin? I mean, the most thorough mitigation efforts would account for symptomatic people (self-isolating/hospitalization as necessary) and a-/pre-/non-symptomatic people who could spread the disease, right? For the latter, things like masks (maybe), social distancing, hygiene, testing, and even contact tracing seem to be appropriate mitigation techniques. There are certainly more extreme measures that are debatable, but it seems like even INGO could agree on a baseline for reasonable precautions to protect against people who may be spreading it without realizing it.

You would think. But there is resistance to wearing a mask so,

 

[chipbennett]

Isn't this a bit of calculating the number of dancing angels on a pin? I mean, the most thorough mitigation efforts would account for symptomatic people (self-isolating/hospitalization as necessary) and a-/pre-/non-symptomatic people who could spread the disease, right? For the latter, things like masks (maybe), social distancing, hygiene, testing, and even contact tracing seem to be appropriate mitigation techniques. There are certainly more extreme measures that are debatable, but it seems like even INGO could agree on a baseline for reasonable precautions to protect against people who may be spreading it without realizing it.

This is the real question. I and others are not willing to give up essential liberties for a little, temporary safety - even for this virus.

 

[chipbennett]

You would think. But there is resistance to wearing a mask so,

Not to wearing; rather, to state mandating the wearing.