Coronavirus

Out of context: Reply #2006

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 6,418 Responses
  • drgs3

    https://www.bmj.com/content/369/…

    4 out of 5 infected don't show any symptoms whatsoever.

    The sample is small, and more data will become available. Also, it’s not clear exactly how these cases were identified. But let’s just say they are generalisable. And even if they are 10% out, then this suggests the virus is everywhere. If—and I stress, if—the results are representative, then we have to ask, ‘What the hell are we locking down for?’

    drgs 3Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • Quoting Tom Jefferson from the linkdrgs
    • Precisely for this reasonOBBTKN
    • Gain time and try not to collapse the emergency rooms with millions of infectionsOBBTKN
    • Hmmm sample size is only 166 people.yuekit
    • One thing I wondered about and might be relevant here...I've read these coronavirus tests can give a false result as much as 30-40% of the time.yuekit
    • If that's true then it seems like if you test a certain number of people, you will inevitably get some number of positive, "asympomatic" results even if thereyuekit
    • are zero actual cases of the virus.yuekit
    • yep. early testkits aren’t very good yet. and depending on where you take the sample, it‘s different results. docs repeat tests regularly if they can.uan
    • this is for the antigen tests.uan
    • also have read reports that much like SARS mild cases spread the disease less and gets it's high R0 from 'superspreaders'kingsteven
    • one mild symptomatic case in china was reported to shed the virus for 49 days until treated by blood plasma from cured patients.kingsteven
    • on the other hand one mild case in the US didn't spread at all after checking all close contacts on a uni campus after developing symptoms on return from china.kingsteven
    • read some preliminary antibody test results from the states that would back up the high asymptomatic counts. big tests happening all over now. we'll know soon.kingsteven
    • @kingsteven can you help to find that vaccine what was distributed to 4 countries from china in the recent days?
      ********
    • I'm helping journalists in Hungary, the gov. saying that they received 400k from that stuff. that's all we know currently.
      ********
    • it took me a while to find a reference in english but it seems to say 'treatment' not vaccine in which case probably favipiravir/ avigankingsteven
    • hmm, that one fell off the wagon furst because its japanese, but right now that and the one made by CanSino Biologics is closest to the truth, so thanks.
      ********
    • first!%
      ********
    • cansino is producing a vaccine. favipiravir is an antiviral treatment developed in japan but is produced in china and the govt have licensed and are treatingkingsteven
    • patients with... cansio is only one of 10+ vaccines in development but is just on first clinical trials, there would be no point in distributing it.kingsteven
    • i'd like to see where it was said to be a 'vaccine' ... i looked up the quote from your health minister and he seems to have said 'treatment'kingsteven
    • we got this far with the help of a doc in shanghai who works at a private hospital selected for foreigners with covid19 and he is saying that they are testing
      ********
    • 7 types of vaccines across the country . its a complete mess.
      ********
    • but its far better than waiting years or generations for a solution.
      ********
    • we will know in 2 weeks sted. i wouldn't take a vaccine unless it had been tested for at least year, strong chance it could kill more than the covid-19 esp inkingsteven
    • venerable people. 2 weeks and we know if italy follows china, better treatment, drug trails complete. the next 2 weeks are huge. vaccine is worst case scenariokingsteven
    • Is this a plausable scenario: Corona is not deadlier, but much more contagious than other flu viruses. If other strains of flu viruses usually penetrate 5-15%drgs
    • ...of the population, corona is more thorough, reaching out to 50-80%, and so more people in risk groups are affected, which explains the higher number of dead.drgs
    • Mortality rates are ratios of dead/infected. We know the number of dead, but the true number of infected is difficult to measure under current circumstancesdrgs
    • And as someone has pointed out, you have to differ between currently ill carriers, and those who are recovered, both in sum make up the "infected" numberdrgs
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread