Covid-19 response

Amity Island said:
Have you ever heard of anyone having flu without symptoms?
Click to expand...
You seem to have a real issue about whether diseases can be spread or contagious whilst having no symptoms. What about tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia ? All can be silent symptom wise yet able to be spread.

There‘s even longer lists of asymptomatic diseases in these links - which both include flu by the way as do many other similar lists. Many of these are contagious.
en.wikipedia.org

Asymptomatic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

Subclinical infection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Doesn’t seem so unrealistic that covid could be another does it?
 
HSSS said:
You seem to have a real issue about whether diseases can be spread or contagious whilst having no symptoms. What about tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia ? All can be silent symptom wise yet able to be spread.

There‘s even longer lists of asymptomatic diseases in these links - which both include flu by the way as do many other similar lists. Many of these are contagious.
en.wikipedia.org

Asymptomatic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

Subclinical infection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Doesn’t seem so unrealistic that covid could be another does it?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between infection and disease. Covid19 has symptoms, sars-cov2 infection may not.

Thus, how can anyone be diagnosed with Covid19 without Covid19 symptoms?

Where does is state here that the symptoms of Covid19 are "no symptoms"?

Symptoms of COVID-19​

COVID-19 symptoms can include:

  • a high temperature or shivering (chills) – a high temperature means you feel hot to touch on your chest or back (you do not need to measure your temperature)
  • a new, continuous cough – this means coughing a lot for more than an hour, or 3 or more coughing episodes in 24 hours
  • a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste
  • shortness of breath
  • feeling tired or exhausted
  • an aching body
  • a headache
  • a sore throat
  • a blocked or runny nose
  • loss of appetite
  • diarrhoea
  • feeling sick or being sick
The symptoms are very similar to symptoms of other illnesses, such as colds and flu.

Most people feel better within a few days or weeks of their first COVID-19 symptoms and make a full recovery within 12 weeks. For some people, it can be a more serious illness and their symptoms can last longer.

www.nhs.uk

COVID-19 symptoms and what to do

Find out about the symptoms of COVID-19, what to do if you or your child has them and when to get medical help.
www.nhs.uk www.nhs.uk
 
Amity Island said:
There is a difference between infection and disease. Covid19 has symptoms, sars-cov2 infection may not.

Thus, how can anyone be diagnosed with Covid19 without Covid19 symptoms?
Click to expand...
This linguistics has been covered before.

Most people use the term covid to refer to both the virus and the disease. Not technically correct but not hard to grasp the meaning either. For the sake of clarity what I mean and I strong assume others mean is that an asymptomatic infection with the sarscov2 virus can be passed along to others, and potentially becoming a case of the disease covid caused by the sarscov2 virus. And a positive test shows the presence of sarscov2.

Does that clarification using more accurate wording change the discussion about the dangers of asymptomatic spread at all? No.
 
HSSS said:
This linguistics has been covered before.

Most people use the term covid to refer to both the virus and the disease. Not technically correct but not hard to grasp the meaning either. For the sake of clarity what I mean and I strong assume others mean is that an asymptomatic infection with the sarscov2 virus can be passed along to others, and potentially becoming a case of the disease covid caused by the sarscov2 virus. And a positive test shows the presence of sarscov2.

Does that clarification using more accurate wording change the discussion about the dangers of asymptomatic spread at all? No.
Click to expand...
It's not linguistics if you are ill or not ill.

In terms of asymptomatic transmission.

"A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission."
 
Amity Island said:
It's not linguistics if you are ill or not ill.

In terms of asymptomatic transmission.

"A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission."
Click to expand...
And you are going to cling onto that one report no matter what others say it seems ……
 
HSSS said:
And you are going to cling onto that one report no matter what others say it seems ……
Click to expand...
What we do know is lockdowns saved 1700 lives. The effects of lockdowns will last for generations, inc missed appointments, missed diagnoses, avoidable deaths. I believe advising those known to spread the virus (coughing and sneezing) would of been a better option for the country as a whole.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds

Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Behind a paywall so I’ve no idea who the experts are or how they drew their conclusions. As such I can’t comment.
 
HSSS said:
Behind a paywall so I’ve no idea who the experts are or how they drew their conclusions. As such I can’t comment.
Click to expand...
As far as I remember criticisms of it said it was written by economists based on papers written by economists without any reference to (for example) epidemiologists.
 
This week, some basic questions (but no answers) being asked about the PCR tests, the basis of lockdowns, case reports and isolation.

Given the pcr tests cannot distinguish between active and inactive(dead) viruses.

1. How many pcr tests had given false positives (shown inactive virus)?
2. What part of the genomic sequence (part of the sars coronavirus 2) was used to indicate someone was positive? In other words, was the sequence used in the pcr test similar to any other coronaviruses (cross reactivity).
3. Can you provide product assessment report on the PCR tests.


This is separate to the issue of the number of cycles (replicated sample) used to provide a result. 35 cycles was said to be the absolute max limit to provide anything near reliable, yet it has been shown that most tests were ran at 35 - 45 cycles.

PCR Test Problems: How There is Often No Live Virus Found Below 24 Cycles - Brightwork Research & Analysis

A PCR test is run for a number of cycles.It is shocking to learn that even below 24 cycles will often find only dead viruses.
www.brightworkresearch.com www.brightworkresearch.com
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
This week, some basic questions (but no answers) being asked about the PCR tests, the basis of lockdowns, case reports and isolation.

Given the pcr tests cannot distinguish between live and inactive(dead) viruses.

1. How many pcr tests had given false positives (shown inactive virus)?
2. What part of the genomic sequence (part of the sars coronavirus 2) was used to indicate someone was positive? In other words, was the sequence used in the pcr test similar to any other coronaviruses (cross reactivity).
3. Can you provide product assessment report on the PCR tests.


This is separate to the issue of the number of cycles (replicated sample) used to provide a result. 35 cycles was said to be the absolute max limit to provide anything near reliable, yet it has been shown that most tests were ran at 35 - 45 cycles.

PCR Test Problems: How There is Often No Live Virus Found Below 24 Cycles - Brightwork Research & Analysis

A PCR test is run for a number of cycles.It is shocking to learn that even below 24 cycles will often find only dead viruses.
www.brightworkresearch.com www.brightworkresearch.com
Click to expand...
There is no distinction between "live" and "dead" viruses, because viruses aren't alive, unlike bacteria which are. A virus is just a sequence of RNA in a casing with no nucleus.
 
mikeyB said:
There is no distinction between "live" and "dead" viruses, because viruses aren't alive, unlike bacteria which are. A virus is just a sequence of RNA in a casing with no nucleus.
Click to expand...
Quite right. "Dead" "live" rna is just a laymans term. But the question remains, if the pcr test cannot distinguish between active and inactive virus, then how do we establish the accuracy of positive "case" numbers? Positive for what is the question being asked.

A positive test for an inactive virus would explain the "asymptomatic" infections, which was the apparent reason given for locking the well people at home. A positive test for an inactive virus would also explain why "A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission." e.g because the virus was inactive.

"Imagine that a virus enters your body. In a few months it might not do anything to you anymore. It might not do anything to your cells (virulence), and it might also lack the capacity to move into another person (infectivity) when you speak or sneeze. It is also possible that this virus simply never did anything to you and lacked infectivity from the very beginning. But traces of the virus might still be present in the person. In this case, the virus is present but inactive."

PCR positives: what do they mean? | The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

www.cebm.net www.cebm.net
 
Amity Island said:
Quite right. "Dead" "live" rna is just a laymans term. But the question remains, if the pcr test cannot distinguish between active and inactive virus, then how do we establish the accuracy of positive "case" numbers? Positive for what is the question being asked.

A positive test for an inactive virus would explain the "asymptomatic" infections, which was the apparent reason given for locking the well people at home. A positive test for an inactive virus would also explain why "A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission." e.g because the virus was inactive.

"Imagine that a virus enters your body. In a few months it might not do anything to you anymore. It might not do anything to your cells (virulence), and it might also lack the capacity to move into another person (infectivity) when you speak or sneeze. It is also possible that this virus simply never did anything to you and lacked infectivity from the very beginning. But traces of the virus might still be present in the person. In this case, the virus is present but inactive."

PCR positives: what do they mean? | The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

www.cebm.net www.cebm.net
Click to expand...
Wow. Possibly the post of yours that’s made the most sense to me in ages.

However it still doesn’t account for how do you know if a person with the virus (positive) is presymptomatic and infectious or if it’s inactive and they are not infectious? Or what about the less sensitive folks who don’t notice minor symptoms but nonetheless have them?

If we had had or will ever get a reliable test for infectiousness that would be wonderful and would avoid taking preventative measures against those that don’t need it. I’m onboard for that. Perfect answer.

In the meantime in the real world we tried to protect everyone from a disease that has killed millions the best we could despite it involving some lateral damage. Yes some of that was severe in a minority of cases unfortunately but I firmly believe “just stay home if you‘re obviously sick” would have been ignored (as it was widely despite already being on of the measures) and the damage to lives, health and the economy in many cultures of “Everyman for himself” and “I’m all right jack” would have suffered far more.
 
HSSS said:
Wow. Possibly the post of yours that’s made the most sense to me in ages.

However it still doesn’t account for how do you know if a person with the virus (positive) is presymptomatic and infectious or if it’s inactive and they are not infectious? Or what about the less sensitive folks who don’t notice minor symptoms but nonetheless have them?

If we had had or will ever get a reliable test for infectiousness that would be wonderful and would avoid taking preventative measures against those that don’t need it. I’m onboard for that. Perfect answer.

In the meantime in the real world we tried to protect everyone from a disease that has killed millions the best we could despite it involving some lateral damage. Yes some of that was severe in a minority of cases unfortunately but I firmly believe “just stay home if you‘re obviously sick” would have been ignored (as it was widely despite already being on of the measures) and the damage to lives, health and the economy in many cultures of “Everyman for himself” and “I’m all right jack” would have suffered far more.
Click to expand...
Glad you liked it! @HSSS

We do have a test that shows infectiousness, whether symptomatic or not, but would need to be looked at in terms of widescale use. It will be interesting to find out, how many positive tests were actually for active virus.

We, the public, were certainly never told that the pcr test doesn't distinguish between active and innactive virus or that it doesn't test for infectiousness.

 
Last edited:
An increase (bad) from a much lower base (good).

thoughts
1. It’s not gone away as so many seem to think it has. People are still hospitalised by it. Thankfully right now a lot less than before
2. Where will the waning uptake of vaccines and denial of its existence or effects take us in the coming years? Or even this winter? Has the virus culled most of the “susceptible“ already and existing immunity carry us through or will we see more significant rises again?
3. The Zoe app has massively fewer contributors now than earlier in the pandemic. Their figures are harder and harder to extrapolate accurately as a result.
4. Massively fewer people test now even if they have symptoms. Positive resulted cases are certain to be lower if testing is lower, no matter what the reality is. Frankly we have no idea of the level of symptomatic cases now as a result without better testing and monitoring. Nor the effect on workplaces or schools etc. What we do know is a lot less people are dying of it as hospitals, you’d hope, still record that!
 
HSSS said:
An increase (bad) from a much lower base (good).

thoughts
1. It’s not gone away as so many seem to think it has. People are still hospitalised by it. Thankfully right now a lot less than before
2. Where will the waning uptake of vaccines and denial of its existence or effects take us in the coming years? Or even this winter? Has the virus culled most of the “susceptible“ already and existing immunity carry us through or will we see more significant rises again?
3. The Zoe app has massively fewer contributors now than earlier in the pandemic. Their figures are harder and harder to extrapolate accurately as a result.
4. Massively fewer people test now even if they have symptoms. Positive resulted cases are certain to be lower if testing is lower, no matter what the reality is. Frankly we have no idea of the level of symptomatic cases now as a result without better testing and monitoring. Nor the effect on workplaces or schools etc. What we do know is a lot less people are dying of it as hospitals, you’d hope, still record that!
Click to expand...
One equestion I've still not got a conclusive answer for is, do the covid vaccines actually prevent infection? If they do, then there should be a reduction in those testing positive. If they don't, then the vaccinted will still show a positive test regardless.
 
Amity Island said:
One question I've still not got a conclusive answer for is, do the covid vaccines actually prevent infection?
Click to expand...
Or is it that they mainly prevent you from becoming seriously ill with it?

My sister was hospitalised with it despite being fully vaccinated and now suffers from long Covid, but she's convinced that if she hadn't been vaccinated she'd have died.
 
Amity Island said:
One equestion I've still not got a conclusive answer for is, do the covid vaccines actually prevent infection? If they do, then there should be a reduction in those testing positive. If they don't, then the vaccinted will still show a positive test regardless.
Click to expand...
It’s been answered repeatedly. No it doesn’t 100% prevent infection. It does both reduce the chance at getting infected and also reduces the severity should you get a breakthrough infection. Though the protection wanes over time

We did see fewer severe infections and deaths after the introduction of vaccines and indeed that was the entire justification for removing all other measures. As far as positive tests go it’s impossible to say what the numbers would have been without them - more and more virulent variants and less and less other measures would undoubtedly have increased them (more?) without vaccines.

Please clarify your statement “a vaccinated person will still show a positive test regardless” - of what?
 
Amity Island said:
One equestion I've still not got a conclusive answer for is, do the covid vaccines actually prevent infection?
Click to expand...
They do but they're not all that good at doing so and (like surviving infection) only do so for a month or two. To prevent infection you'd need antibodies in the mucus of your nose and lungs, and you're not going to keep those for very long even for an infection which you've had that way. (They're not alone in not preventing infection. There's apparently some chance that the HPV vaccine does but I don't think anyone's going to put money on that. Otherwise no vaccines do for much the same reason: you need high enough levels of circulating antibodies and those can't be maintained forever.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top