Nature on The futility of quarantining HEALTHY individuals

[Cathoholic]

Repeatedly you are cherry picking what you want from this research

I disagree. These numbers are startling.

You have offered no rebuttal (other than ipse dixit) based upon the numbers presented in the study.

I have presented the numbers and hve drawn logical conclusions from those numbers.

Here they are again. . . .

Over a THOUSAND close contacts of people who had an asymptomatic corona virus infection.​

ZERO of those close contacts got infected.​

 

[Cathoholic]

That’s fair enough @Montrose.

That is starting to be something that I would be looking for.

Now where did that research come from to support this conclusion?

Because we are stil left with a study that has the following numbers . . . .

Over a THOUSAND close contacts of people who had an asymptomatic corona virus infection.​

ZERO of those close contacts got infected.​

.

The next step would be to look at that study (studies).

Or ask if the research is honest.
Or ask if the virus was differing genetic strains.
Or ask if Chinese people have a genetic predisposition that protects them in such cases.
Or ask if the CDC studies were on Americans, if Americans have a genetic predisposition to make them more susceptible, etc. etc.
The point is, it just raises more questions (but does not necessarily negate such numbers as from the Chinese study. It may [with a lot more added]. But it may not too.)

It raises important questions.

But in order to do that, you need MORE (which is WHY I took great care in saying here on this tread “based on THIS study”).

 

[Montrose]

That’s fair enough @Montrose.

That is starting to be something that I would be looking for.

Now where did that research come from to support this conclusion?

That’s from CDC. You should check their website for what is behind it.

 

[Cathoholic]

You should check their website for what is behind it.

I already did. I didn’t see anything.

 

[Montrose]

I already did. I didn’t see anything.

Sorry but I’m not searching their website for what you are looking for. I told you what they said and their website was updated on Friday.

 

[Cathoholic]

Montrose on the cdc citing no evidence . . .

Sorry but I’m not searching their website for what you are looking for.

Fair enough. It might just be uninformed opinion at this point (uninformed by studies).

I told you what they said and their website was updated on Friday.

The very day after the Nature article came out.
But nothing to back it up.

Thanks for posting it.

I will see in the future if they ever attempt to back it up.
Or modify their outlook based upon the Nature study.
Or something else.

.

For everybody else. The only thing I can fndis the CDC lumped together asymptomatic and presymptomatic patients.

The ABC news outfit that @Montrose cited then lumped them both together (citing CNN).

But so far at least, I dont see that from the CDC page.
I am not saying this is more CNN or ABC Fake news yet.

I just want to see the primary source. Then the information cited fromTHAT primary source too.

Addendum. Here is the link from the cdc info page for the next two posts:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

 

[Cathoholic]

From the cdc page currently (minus a few details and references that do not deal with asymptomatic patients) . . .

1/2 . . .

Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2

Updated Nov. 20, 2020

Background​

SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks, to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions.1,2 Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects; individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.

Source Control to Block Exhaled Virus​

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment,3-6 along with the microorganisms these particles carry.7,8 Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger)9 but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns ;3,5 which increase in number with the volume of speech10-12 and specific types of phonation.13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3,14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5,6,15,16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets,4 with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control.3,9,14

Filtration for Personal Protection​

Studies demonstrate that cloth mask materials can also reduce wearers’ exposure to infectious droplets through filtration, including filtration of fine droplets and particles less than 10 microns. The relative filtration effectiveness of various masks has varied widely across studies, in large part due to variation in experimental design and particle sizes analyzed. Multiple layers of cloth with higher thread counts have demonstrated superior performance compared to single layers of cloth with lower thread counts, in some cases filtering nearly 50% of fine particles less than 1 micron .14,17-29 Some materials (e.g., polypropylene) may enhance filtering effectiveness by generating triboelectric charge (a form of static electricity) that enhances capture of charged particles18,30 while others (e.g., silk) may help repel moist droplets31 and reduce fabric wetting and thus maintain breathability and comfort. . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2 . . .

Human Studies of Masking and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission​

Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies.

• An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.32
• In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%.33
• A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.34
• A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.35
• Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, . . .

Conclusions​

Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation. . . .

References

. . . 13. Abkarian M, Mendez S, Xue N, Yang F, Stone HA. Speech can produce jet-like transport relevant to asymptomatic spreading of virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(41):25237-25245.10.1073/pnas.2012156117. Speech can produce jet-like transport relevant to asymptomatic spreading of virus - PubMed icon… . .

 

[Cathoholic]

It turned out to be fake news @Montrose.
ABC quoted CNN who misquoted the CDC.

If I have time later this week, I may show you how they hornswaggled their readers.

But I have to work on a Bible study too for our Bible group and I may not get time to show you.

Again. Many thanks for posting though. I am up for wherever the (good) information leads me.

But that was not good information.
It was so bad, I will screen capture it in case it disappears.

 

[Montrose]

It turned out to be fake news @Montrose.
ABC quoted CNN who misquoted the CDC.

If I have time later this week, I may show you how they hornswaggled their readers.

But I have to work on a Bible study too for our Bible group and I may not get time to show you.

Again. Many thanks for posting though. I am up for wherever the (good) information leads me.

But that was not good information.
It was so bad, I will screen capture it in case it disappears.

Okay.
Didn’t CDC say, though, that more than 50% of transmissions are from combined asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic?

 

[Cathoholic]

Montrse . . .

Okay.
Didn’t CDC say, though, that more than 50% of transmissions are from combined asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic?

.

Yes. It was a partial truth.

Here is what the cdc said . . . .

Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions.

Bold mine.

This last part was either made-up by the cdc,
or they forgot to cite a source.

But even that was NOT what the cited source said.

ABC ran a partial-truth headline stating . . .

CDC coronavirus update: Agency says most COVID-19 infections spread by people without symptoms​

CNN likewise said that . .

Most coronavirus cases are spread by people without symptoms, CDC now says​

It was a giveaway that it was political instead of scientific when cnn started their “news” story with this video posted prior to the story . . . .

How vulnerable to Covid-19 are supporters at Trump’s rallies? 03:57​

Heres what the research paper cited by the cdc said . . .

Speech can produce jet-like transport relevant to asymptomatic spreading of virus​

Manouk Abkarian 1, Simon Mendez 2, Nan Xue 3, Fan Yang 3, Howard A Stone 4

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 32978297
• PMCID: PMC7568291 (available on 2021-03-25)
• DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012156117

Abstract​

Many scientific reports document that asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals contribute to the spread of COVID-19, probably during conversations in social interactions. . . .

. . . Keywords: COVID-19; asymptomatic transmission; pathogen dispersion.

Speech can produce jet-like transport relevant to asymptomatic spreading of virus - PubMed

That’s it. That’s where they got their"conclusions" from. At least their cited conclusions.

 

[Montrose]

This last part was either made-up by the cdc,
or they forgot to cite a source.

I doubt very much the CDC just made that up.
By the way “made up” means “lied”. Why would the CDC lie?

 

[Montrose]

Extracts from the Nature article:

"Although there is a lower risk of transmission from asymptomatic people, they might still present a significant public-health risk because they are more likely to be out in the community than isolated at home, says Andrew Azman, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, who is based in Switzerland and was a co-author on the study. “The actual public-health burden of this massive pool of interacting ‘asymptomatics’ in the community probably suggests that a sizeable portion of transmission events are from asymptomatic transmissions,” he says.

“Although there is a now a better understanding of asymptomatic infections and transmission of COVID-19, Cevik says that asymptomatic people should continue to use measures that reduce viral spread, such as social distancing, hand hygiene and wearing a mask.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

This last part was either made-up by the cdc,
or they forgot to cite a source.

But even that was NOT what the cited source said.

.

I doubt very much the CDC just made that up.

Sorry but I’m not searching their website for what you are looking for.

If you think this was backed up, at this point it’s up to you to prove it.

I already did the work and so far, found no evidence.

By the way “made up” means “lied”. Why would the CDC lie?

So says you. Maybe they just provided an educated guess.

One thing they didn’t do though is cite a scientific work.
Or if they meant to, they may have forgotten. It could be a mistake.

 

[Cathoholic]

Although there is a lower risk of transmission from asymptomatic people, they might still present a significant public-health risk

That’s right. They (the active asymptomatic corona virus carrier patients) still MIGHT.

It may take THREE THOUSAND close contacts to get ONE case.

Perhaps FIVE THOUSAND.

But the numbers remain for THIS study . . .

Over a THOUSAND close contacts of people who had an asymptomatic corona virus infection.​

ZERO of those close contacts got infected.​

.

And as you pointed out, the Chinese team of researchers saying . . .

. . . there is a lower risk of transmission from asymptomatic people . . .

 

[Socrates92]

Bravo! We need as much of this civil disobedience as possible right now.