asymptomatic spread study...

3,851 Views | 18 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by FrioAg 00
Aggie95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32405162/

sorry if already posted.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great news if that's accurate. Would change a lot of assumptions driving our response so far, especially masks.
L.A. Ag97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very interesting study and certainly quite relevant. Thanks for posting it.
terradactylexpress
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just a single carrier though, needs to be looked at in a larger study
Keller6Ag91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
terradactylexpress said:

Just a single carrier though, needs to be looked at in a larger study


455 test subjects were around a single asymptomatic COVID19 carrier. Certainly a promising look when all 455 test subjects averaged 4-5 days of direct exposure and ZERO picked it up.
Gig'Em and God Bless,

JB'91
AggieJ2002
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Directly from the study's conclusion:

" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."

It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.

I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.

This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.

Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?

For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.
Keller6Ag91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieJosh2002 said:

Directly from the study's conclusion:

" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."

It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.

I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.

This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.

Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?

For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.


While we certainly certainly shouldn't be claiming victory, this is an important development that would be a benefit for us all. Hopefully other complementary tasks are in the works and will be seen soon.
Gig'Em and God Bless,

JB'91
AggieJ2002
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Keller6Ag91 said:


While we certainly certainly shouldn't be claiming victory, this is an important development that would be a benefit for us all. Hopefully other complementary tasks are in the works and will be seen soon.


Agree completely
Snap E Tom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is in line with another study looking specifically at r0 a few weeks ago. The conclusion was that asymptomatic carriers accounted for very little transmission (r0 of 0.1). It was the pre-symptomatic people that were the problem.
DTP02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm assuming this is a different case than the one with the kid who had COVID19 and the flu and infected a bunch of people with the flu but not COVID19?
Gordo14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieJosh2002 said:

Directly from the study's conclusion:

" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."

It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.

I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.

This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.

Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?

For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.


However this anecdotal evidence is at odds with the "there were 1200 prisoners who tested positive - all asymptomatic" anecdotal evidence brought up regularly.

At the end of the day, the study is interesting, but doesn't change anything at this time.
BourbonAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It isn't really at odds. There haven't been any situations like you describe where everyone is asymptomatic in a large population. There could easily be situations where most of the population is asymptomatic but there were a few symptomatic spreaders in a closed environment, particularly if the super spreader theory is valid..

I also agree that this doesn't change much right now.
zachsccr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gordo14 said:

AggieJosh2002 said:

Directly from the study's conclusion:

" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."

It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.

I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.

This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.

Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?

For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.


However this anecdotal evidence



Just to be clear, this is not anecdotal evidence. This was a study published in the Journal of Respiratory Medicine.
Now, if we want to question its validity coming out of China have at it.
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I tested positive for the antibodies - with the most accurate serology test, and never having been symptomatic at all.


I've never stopped going into work. I live with 6 family members. I have probably stayed in the bottom 10% in terms of quarantine level (don't wear a mask unless I am forced to).

You want to know how many people I know that have got COVID19? Zero. If I could give it to people there would be a bunch.
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is there a study that anyone believes anymore. I have never in my life seen more contradictory information than this period in my life. It is almost as if they are trying to confuse everyone and make everyone scared. Oh yeah that's exactly what they are trying to do. Could quote some stats but at the end of the day they are all just stats. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
AgsMyDude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FrioAg 00 said:

I tested positive for the antibodies - with the most accurate serology test, and never having been symptomatic at all.



Which test is that?
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Snap E Tom said:

This is in line with another study looking specifically at r0 a few weeks ago. The conclusion was that asymptomatic carriers accounted for very little transmission (r0 of 0.1). It was the pre-symptomatic people that were the problem.
I was nearly, but not quite, asymptomatic. As far as I can tell, I didn't infect anyone.

However, much of that may have been due to going into quarantine upon learning that I had been in contact with a couple who had been tested for covid-19 without waiting for the results of their tests. When I found out the next week that their tests came back positive, I really tightened my quarantine.
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Blood test in the lab for IgG, rather than a test for the viral genome (nasal swab in an office)

AgsMyDude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FrioAg 00 said:

Blood test in the lab for IgG, rather than a test for the viral genome (nasal swab in an office)




Yes I know what the test is. Your comment sounded like whatever lab you used was considered to be the most accurate of the serology tests. That's what I was asking about.

Quote:

with the most accurate serology test,
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I do, it's the Sorian (Spelling?) equipment just approved by the FDA a couple weeks ago for Covid testing. It's not the "cross flow" method, whatever that means.

I am by no means an expert, but the Chief of Pathology for my hospital is. She wrote it up and did a great job explaining it all (better than I can) - and frankly I would have approved her to purchase whatever she said was the best.

It can run about 1000 tests per day, and there is very little chance of a false positive or negative. It's the same equipment being used by the NIH for its study.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.