Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

Which again is a political issue not a medical/scientific one. Lack of faith in the government is not at all shocking at this point and I’d say the norm rather than the exception looking at polling.

My feelings of something being off are all based on the scientific and medical responses. I've got hundreds of examples of these. Here's one of them.

Prior to 2020 it was "coughs and sneezes spread diseases" this became:

"Anyone infected with COVID-19 can spread it, even if they do NOT have symptoms."

@HSSS How can anyone have this serious and deadly disease called covid 19 and not have symptoms?

If you have no symptoms then you don't have covid 19. To have a confirmed case of covid19 you would need both a positive sarscov2 pcr test + symptoms of covid19.

 

[Dragonheart]

My feelings of something being off are all based on the scientific and medical responses. I've got hundreds of examples of these. Here's one of them.

Prior to 2020 it was "coughs and sneezes spread diseases" this became:

"Anyone infected with COVID-19 can spread it, even if they do NOT have symptoms."

@HSSS How can anyone have this serious and deadly disease called covid 19 and not have symptoms?

If you have no symptoms then you don't have covid 19. To have a confirmed case of covid19 you would need both a positive sarscov2 pcr test + symptoms of covid19.

For colds and flu virus’ that mantra is probably pretty accurate in the main and the most common and most effective way to spread them. And coughs and sneezes remain effective transmission tools for the virus that causes covid as well. It refers to droplet and aerosol transmission more than specifically how those particles exit the body. Sure a cough or a sneeze will propel them further and faster but it’s on the normal breath too. Nothing in the easy phrasing precludes asymptomatic transmission in any of these virus’

You are being very specific differentiating the virus from the disease it causes. Most people and media use the two terms interchangeably (albeit not quite accurate). Isn’t that intent obvious to you?

It is perfectly possible to spread a virus (and it’s resultant disease) without obvious symptoms, either because you are a carrier of the virus but don’t have the disease itself, they are too mild to pay attention to or because you are not yet showing symptoms. So perhaps it is more accurately phrased as you can spread the sars-cov 2 virus without having symptoms yourself. And in the next person that may result in the covid disease (possible severely or fatally) even if it didn’t in you. And there lies the danger of asymptomatic transmission. So whilst people may be using the “wrong” words it doesn’t mean the event they intend to describe is not happening. To deny the spread of the virus purely on these semantics is disingenuous/misleading.

Of course you can have the sars cov2 virus or the actual covid disease itself without a positive test. You just don’t know you have it if you don’t test in that situation. The test doesn’t create the presence of the virus/disease. It identifies it.

Nearly 7 million worldwide deaths in just 3 years would support that covid can be serious and deadly. Not that it will always be so. You are over simplifying into black and white arguments or playing word games.

 

[Amity Island]

For colds and flu virus’ that mantra is probably pretty accurate in the main and the most common and most effective way to spread them. And coughs and sneezes remain effective transmission tools for the virus that causes covid as well. It refers to droplet and aerosol transmission more than specifically how those particles exit the body. Sure a cough or a sneeze will propel them further and faster but it’s on the normal breath too. Nothing in the easy phrasing precludes asymptomatic transmission in any of these virus’

You are being very specific differentiating the virus from the disease it causes. Most people and media use the two terms interchangeably (albeit not quite accurate). Isn’t that intent obvious to you?

It is perfectly possible to spread a virus (and it’s resultant disease) without obvious symptoms, either because you are a carrier of the virus but don’t have the disease itself, they are too mild to pay attention to or because you are not yet showing symptoms. So perhaps it is more accurately phrased as you can spread the sars-cov 2 virus without having symptoms yourself. And in the next person that may result in the covid disease (possible severely or fatally) even if it didn’t in you. And there lies the danger of asymptomatic transmission. So whilst people may be using the “wrong” words it doesn’t mean the event they intend to describe is not happening. To deny the spread of the virus purely on these semantics is disingenuous/misleading.

Of course you can have the sars cov2 virus or the actual covid disease itself without a positive test. You just don’t know you have it if you don’t test in that situation. The test doesn’t create the presence of the virus/disease. It identifies it.

Nearly 7 million worldwide deaths in just 3 years would support that covid can be serious and deadly. Not that it will always be so. You are over simplifying into black and white arguments or playing word games.

To be diagnosed with diabetes, would you agree, there must be some verifiable symptoms, be it raised blood sugars, ill health, thirst, urinating often, blurry vision, tiredness etc?

 

[Dragonheart]

To be diagnosed with diabetes, would you agree, there must be some verifiable symptoms, be it raised blood sugars, ill health, thirst, urinating often, blurry vision, tiredness etc?

Going round in circles here. You can have a virus that leads to the disease without/before symptoms/with such mild symptoms you fail to notice them. Eg you can have chicken pox with just a spot or two that could be missed so you could believe you are symptom free. Not realising you have something isn’t the same as not having it.

Are you denying asymptomatic illness exists in general, just with virus’ or just not covid?

Diabetes is not a virus so that’s a poor argument.

 

[Amity Island]

Going round in circles here. You can have a virus that leads to the disease without/before symptoms/with such mild symptoms you fail to notice them. Eg you can have chicken pox with just a spot or two that could be missed so you could believe you are symptom free. Not realising you have something isn’t the same as not having it.

Are you denying asymptomatic illness exists in general, just with virus’ or just not covid?

Diabetes is not a virus so that’s a poor argument.

Please explain; how can it be a covid19 death if they had no symptoms?

 

[Amity Island]

Diabetes is not a virus so that’s a poor argument.

It's actually a good example. Diabetes has distinctive symptoms (as does covid19) and like covid19, Type 1 diabetes (which I have) is likely triggered by a virus (as covid19 is).

The point I was trying to make with this example, is that a virus is not the same as an illness, condition or disease. Having a virus doesn't qualify as a disease or condition. Thus, one can't have a "case" of diabetes (nor a case of covid19) without having some distinctive symptoms. If you never had any symptoms, then you haven't had covid19 or diabetes.

There must be others on the forum that can understand this without saying it's just circular discussion or word games?

 

[Eddy Edson]

Thus, one can't have a case of diabetes (nor a case of covid19) without having some distinctive symptoms.

An instance of a disease can certainly be asymptomatic, under the normal definitions. COVID-19 is a good example of a disease in which many instances are asymptomatic, through the entire course of the infection or during an initital asymptomatic period. MS is another.

 

[Amity Island]

An instance of a disease can certainly be asymptomatic, under the normal definitions. COVID-19 is a good example of a disease in which many instances are asymptomatic, through the entire course of the infection or during an initital asymptomatic period. MS is another.

Please explain; how can it be a covid19 death if they had no symptoms?

 

[Amity Island]

 

[Amity Island]

An instance of a disease can certainly be asymptomatic, under the normal definitions. COVID-19 is a good example of a disease in which many instances are asymptomatic, through the entire course of the infection or during an initital asymptomatic period. MS is another.

Equally, how can one have had a case of flu and have had no symptoms?

Imagine ringing in work and saying you have flu and won't be in work for a few days. They ask how are feeling? You answer perfect, no symptoms at all!

 

[Dragonheart]

Please explain; how can it be a covid19 death if they had no symptoms?

Did anyone say asymptomatic covid caused death? I doubt very much many death certificates stated covid was the cause of death in someone totally asymptomatic regardless of when it occurred. Being included on the “within 28 days of a positive” is not the same thing which is what I suspect you are talking about. That latter list will also have missed people who survived severe covid to 29 days and more and then died directly as a result of it.

However theoretically it could still be on a death certificate as a contributing factor if the virus damaged the heart such that the person had a fatal heart attack for instance. Proving this and excluding other causes of the damage would be somewhat difficult I assume Yet study after study is showing organ damage leading to later complications and deaths is a real thing even if I’m not sure from memory if that includes asymptomatic cases.

 

[Dragonheart]

Equally, how can one have had a case of flu and have had no symptoms?

Imagine ringing in work and saying you have flu and won't be in work for a few days. They ask how are feeling? You answer perfect, no symptoms at all!

With covid you were staying away after a positive test to avoid making someone else sick. Especially considering it was a novel disease caused by the virus concerned and when the variants were so severe with so many simultaneously needing hospital care and with no known natural immunity and not knowing who was most vulnerable to it and why.

Having the virus (with or without symptoms/disease) means you can infect others with it and their response may not the be same as yours - even now. And this is the part you seem to just keep missing. It doesn’t matter if you are calling it the virus or the disease and by what name. The reality is unchanged by the linguistics.

Flu historically hasn’t been tested for unless seriously ill (and certainly not at home) who knows how many people carry those virus’ without symptoms (hence not tested and not labelled) but went on to give it to others who did suffer a whole lot more.

Autoimmune Type 1 may be triggered by some virus’ as well as other things. Let’s try this. If you knew you had a virus that was highly contagious and would trigger Type 1 in a significant number of those infected with that virus would you think some controls should be in place? Would you isolate from your loved ones to protect them from the potential consequences of that virus? Your family might be known to be at higher risk as autoimmune conditions can be genetic. But what about your friends/workmates/strangers near you whose risk you simply don’t know, any maybe they don’t either?

 

[Amity Island]

With covid you were staying away after a positive test to avoid making someone else sick. Especially considering it was a novel disease caused by the virus concerned and when the variants were so severe with so many simultaneously needing hospital care and with no known natural immunity and not knowing who was most vulnerable to it and why.

Having the virus (with or without symptoms/disease) means you can infect others with it and their response may not the be same as yours - even now. And this is the part you seem to just keep missing. It doesn’t matter if you are calling it the virus or the disease and by what name. The reality is unchanged by the linguistics.

Flu historically hasn’t been tested for unless seriously ill (and certainly not at home) who knows how many people carry those virus’ without symptoms (hence not tested and not labelled) but went on to give it to others who did suffer a whole lot more.

Autoimmune Type 1 may be triggered by some virus’ as well as other things. Let’s try this. If you knew you had a virus that was highly contagious and would trigger Type 1 in a significant number of those infected with that virus would you think some controls should be in place? Would you isolate from your loved ones to protect them from the potential consequences of that virus? Your family might be known to be at higher risk as autoimmune conditions can be genetic. But what about your friends/workmates/strangers near you whose risk you simply don’t know, any maybe they don’t either?

We actually agree I think, and what you say is correct and the reason people isolated after getting a positive sars-cov 2 test (to prevent spread of a virus). The distinction I make, is jumping from what is only a positive test and then calling it covid19. They were counting positive tests as a diagnosis of covid19 which clearly isn't right. Nor was it right to count covid19 deaths solely from a positive test without any covid19 symptoms present. The virus can in some people lead to covid19 but having the virus is not covid19 per se.

Nobody died of a positive test is what I am saying, which is essentially what they claimed with their "death within 28 days of a positive test".

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Nobody died of a positive test is what I am saying, which is essentially what they claimed with their "death within 28 days of a positive test".

That (deaths within 28 days of a positive test), as you know, was just something that was easy to produce quickly. It had good correlation with numbers of deaths from C19 reported on death certificates (though I think the correlation became poorer later on).

 

[Robin]

That (deaths within 28 days of a positive test), as you know, was just something that was easy to produce quickly. It had good correlation with numbers of deaths from C19 reported on death certificates (though I think the correlation became poorer later on).

Yes, it was something that could be produced quickly, for the most up to date daily figures, and was found to be roughly consistent with The Office for National Statistics, in that it missed as many as it overcounted, so the figure balanced itself out.The ONS complied its own list, but was often not up to date for weeks because of the delays in issuing and collating death certificates (not necessarily because of inefficiencies, there are delays in issuing the death certificate when there has to be a PM or an inquest, for example).

 

[Amity Island]

Yes, it was something that could be produced quickly, for the most up to date daily figures, and was found to be roughly consistent with The Office for National Statistics, in that it missed as many as it overcounted, so the figure balanced itself out.The ONS complied its own list, but was often not up to date for weeks because of the delays in issuing and collating death certificates (not necessarily because of inefficiencies, there are delays in issuing the death certificate when there has to be a PM or an inquest, for example).

Hi Robin,

What is the difference between or what does it mean if someone has had the sarscov2 virus and was asymptomatic (no symptoms) and someone having had covid19 and asymptomatic (no symptoms)? In others words, what is covid19 if it isn't an illness/disease? What is covid19?

 

[Robin]

Hi Robin,

What is the difference between or what does it mean if someone has had the sarscov2 virus and was asymptomatic (no symptoms) and someone having had covid19 and asymptomatic (no symptoms)? In others words, what is covid19 if it isn't an illness/disease? What is covid19?

I think we’ve gone round in too many circles on that one for me to be able to add anything meaningful.

 

[Amity Island]

I think we’ve gone round in too many circles on that one for me to be able to add anything meaningful.

All i'm saying is (as a genuine question not playing silly word games etc), how can anyone have had flu or covid19 and not had symptoms? Yes, I agree we can test positive for a virus and not go on to develop a flu or covid19, but to suggest someone has covid19 (which was done throughout the pandemic) without having had any symptoms is ludicrous.

 

[Dragonheart]

We actually agree I think, and what you say is correct and the reason people isolated after getting a positive sars-cov 2 test (to prevent spread of a virus). The distinction I make, is jumping from what is only a positive test and then calling it covid19. They were counting positive tests as a diagnosis of covid19 which clearly isn't right. Nor was it right to count covid19 deaths solely from a positive test without any covid19 symptoms present. The virus can in some people lead to covid19 but having the virus is not covid19 per se.

Nobody died of a positive test is what I am saying, which is essentially what they claimed with their "death within 28 days of a positive test".

I think @Robin hits the nail on the head here.

It was a rough and ready count (that turned out to be numerically reasonably accurate even if not case by case) and used widely inaccurately by the ”anti” brigade to try and make it mean something it never did.

 

[Robin]

All i'm saying is (as a genuine question not playing silly word games etc), how can anyone have had flu or covid19 and not had symptoms? Yes, I agree we can test positive for a virus and not go on to develop a flu or covid19, but to suggest someone has covid19 (which was done throughout the pandemic) without having had any symptoms is ludicrous.

I can only give you a personal layman’s view, influenced by my belief that most things are in shades of grey, not black and white.
You take in a virus. Probably via the nose or mouth. Then various bits of your immune system swing into action, and what happens next probably very much depends on how efficient that is, or how virulent the virus is at replicating itself. Either the virus is mopped up and neutralised, end of story. Or it starts to replicate, the immune system mounts a stronger challenge, and sees it off. Or the immune system has to start from scratch and try and firefight something it’s not seen before, and it takes a while to find a solution. Or it fails to mount a robust enough response, and the virus multiplies out of control. Or, the immune system overreacts so much that the response gets out of control.
At some point, the virus will be present in enough quantities to make you feel unwell, or you may not feel unwell immediately, but the immune system is losing ground, the virus is multiplying, and is being shed outside the body, which is when you will be infectious. The virus depends on this happening in some way, in order to spread to the next host.
At some point, you've gone from hosting the Sars-Cov virus, to shedding it. And at some point you may feel ill. I don’t think there’s two things necessarily happen at the same point in the same two people. The fact that some people who were unaware of having been infected were found to have produced antibodies suggests it is possible for a virus/immune system battle to have happened without the host knowing much about it.