1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16821
    14 Jan '21 13:45
    @humy said
    Numbers of what? And why cannot you look it up yourself? We won't baby sit you. And from which article? The first one? If you won't percentages, I just did.
    Reminder;
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
    "...Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people...."
    -And if the percentages don't convince you, nothing will.
    The article also said this:

    Research early in the pandemic suggested that the rate of asymptomatic infections could be as high as 81%. But a meta-analysis published last month1, which included 13 studies involving 21,708 people, calculated the rate of asymptomatic presentation to be 17%.
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    14 Jan '21 15:10
    @metal-brain said
    The article also said this:

    Research early in the pandemic suggested that the rate of asymptomatic infections could be as high as 81%. But a meta-analysis published last month1, which included 13 studies involving 21,708 people, calculated the rate of asymptomatic presentation to be 17%.
    So what?
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16821
    15 Jan '21 03:19
    "Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel appeared to agree Wednesday that Covid-19 will become endemic, saying “SARS-CoV-2 is not going away.”

    “We are going to live with this virus, we think, forever,” he said during a panel discussion at the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference."

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/moderna-ceo-says-the-world-will-have-to-live-with-the-coronavirus-forever.html
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    15 Jan '21 18:08
    Here is a possible new word that might well be added to future dictionaries;

    "covidiot"

    Not too hard to guess what it might mean!

    https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/what-does-covidiot-mean
    "...
    Macmillian Dictionary defines “covidiot” as “an insulting term for someone who ignores health advice about COVID-19." Urban Dictionary takes a pretty similar approach, defining “covidiot” as “someone who ignores the warnings regarding public health or safety. A person who hoards goods, denying them from their neighbors.”
    ..."

    Those two meanings are a bit different but, I think you get the idea.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53033
    15 Jan '21 21:04
    @humy
    You will have to explain it to him. It doesn't fit his conspiracy theories.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16821
    17 Jan '21 05:41
    @humy said
    Here is a possible new word that might well be added to future dictionaries;

    "covidiot"

    Not too hard to guess what it might mean!

    https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/what-does-covidiot-mean
    "...
    Macmillian Dictionary defines “covidiot” as “an insulting term for someone who ignores health advice about COVID-19." Urban Dictionary takes a pre ...[text shortened]... rom their neighbors.”
    ..."

    Those two meanings are a bit different but, I think you get the idea.
    You don't even know the mRNA covid vaccine is not really a vaccine at all. Who is the covidiot?
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    17 Jan '21 08:07
    @metal-brain said
    You don't even know the mRNA covid vaccine is not really a vaccine at all.
    The mRNA covid vaccine is a vaccine, idiot.
  8. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    8626
    19 Jan '21 01:09
    @metal-brain said
    You don't even know the mRNA covid vaccine is not really a vaccine at all. Who is the covidiot?
    This might be the most ludicrous thing you've written on here, and that's saying a lot.
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87046
    19 Jan '21 13:57
    @metal-brain said
    You don't even know the mRNA covid vaccine is not really a vaccine at all. Who is the covidiot?
    By the definition of what a vaccine is this is wrong. All that is required for a drug to act as a vaccine is for it to induce acquired immunity, which is what the drugs do. Where did you get this gem from? Because you might want to drop that particular source.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Jan '21 14:103 edits
    @deepthought said
    By the definition of what a vaccine is this is wrong.
    Exactly!
    For regarding whether its a vaccine, it doesn't matter exactly how the vaccine works nor exactly what the vaccine physically consists of, if it does the basic job of a vaccine i.e. gives resistance to the disease and if it is both designed and given to people to do just that, its a vaccine by definition.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    20 Jan '21 12:344 edits
    This link helps explain why, even long after you get covid-vaccinated, just exactly as this link explicitly says, you should still continue to "wear masks, practice physical distancing, and wash their hands when around those who haven’t been vaccinated—just in case. ", at least until this epidemic is well under control.

    https://qz.com/1954762/can-you-spread-covid-19-if-you-get-the-vaccine/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    It also explains the difference between IgG antibodies and IgA antibodies, which I didn't know about before and find quite interesting.
    It says;

    "... From what we know so far, Covid-19 vaccines cause the body to produce a class of antibodies called immunoglobulin G, or IgG antibodies, explains Matthew Woodruff, an immunologist at Emory University. IgG antibodies are thugs: They react swiftly to all kinds of foreign entities. They make up the majority of our antibodies, and are confined to the parts of our body that don’t have contact with the outside world, like our muscles and blood.

    But to prevent Covid-19 transmission, another type of antibodies could be the more important player. The immune system that patrols your outward-facing mucosal surfaces—spaces like the nose, the throat, the lungs, and digestive tract—relies on immunoglobulin A, or IgA antibodies. And we don’t yet know how well existing vaccines incite IgA antibodies.
    ..."
    That above " we don’t yet know" part is most unfortunate and I would say we urgently need to research it so we do know and, if the answer is 'no' i.e. if existing vaccines do NOT incite IgA antibodies, that may well mean we will have to vaccine literally everybody who hasn't yet had the virus to ensure it doesn't keep killing large numbers of people.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87046
    20 Jan '21 14:58
    @humy said
    This link helps explain why, even long after you get covid-vaccinated, just exactly as this link explicitly says, you should still continue to "wear masks, practice physical distancing, and wash their hands when around those who haven’t been vaccinated—just in case. ", at least until this epidemic is well under control.

    https://qz.com/1954762/can-you-spread-covid-19-if-you-ge ...[text shortened]... ly everybody who hasn't yet had the virus to ensure it doesn't keep killing large numbers of people.
    That's interesting, it goes some way to explaining the order of vaccine roll out. My thinking, based on the belief that vaccinated people could not spread the disease, was that they should vaccinate NHS and care home staff first, then retail staff, the emergency services, and other people based on the number of people they contact by occupation. My reasoning being that the way to protect vulnerable groups is to get the basic reproduction number of the virus down to as close to zero as possible and drive it into local extinction, vaccinating people who contact a lot of people through their occupation produces a fire-break to reduce the spread. If people who are vaccinated essentially become asymptomatic cases who can be infectious then the policy of vaccinating vulnerable groups first, with a higher risk of vaccine breakout, starts to make sense.

    It seems likely to me that even if vaccinated people can infect others the risk is right down as their bodies won't be producing viruses at anywhere near the rate that unvaccinated people's will.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Feb '21 12:531 edit
    Just some bad news in from this study that indicates at least 50% of COVID-19 infections come from people who aren't showing symptoms;

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-covid-infections-people-symptoms.html
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87046
    13 Feb '21 18:551 edit
    @humy said
    Just some bad news in from this study that indicates at least 50% of COVID-19 infections come from people who aren't showing symptoms;

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-covid-infections-people-symptoms.html
    Without having looked at the study, this shouldn't be overly surprising. Someone who is asymptomatic has no reason to self-isolate. To infect someone one has to be in proximity to them and be carrying the disease and for the virus to be passed on to them. Symptomatic people are less likely to come into proximity to someone, so one would expect the bulk of transmission to be by asymptomatic carriers. That it's only 50% seems to me to imply that the probability of transmission per encounter is lower with asymptomatic people.
Back to Top