News   May 14, 2021
 2.4K     0 
News   May 14, 2021
 522     0 
News   May 14, 2021
 2K     2 

Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (nCoV-2019)

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
787
Speaking of confusing double-speak...................what in the ever-living........is this?

View attachment 293988

Thou shalt not evict someone unless the the LTB or the Court gets grumpy? Really?
I don't know enough about the sections of the law to be sure, but I think these are for cases where an eviction has been made because a residential property has changed ownership and the new owner wants to (or claims to want to) move in to the premises, but the tenant has not left.
 

zang

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,570
Reaction score
1,822
Ok. So, then you'd be the perfect person to explain to me the results of the meta-analysis study you cited.


Is that a fact? Like my diabetic and asthmatic mate who also has lung disease being turned away from testing when he presented with shortness of breath and cough? Oh, sorry, that's WITH symptoms and still denied testing.

(He tested negative twice....it was a different virus that nearly killed him this time ; ) )

Testing has been a bit lacking.

Okay, you're smart enough to know that's anecdotal. Was your friend trying to walk in and get a test after they required appointment? Was he trying to get a test in a pharmacy (who aren't testing those with symptoms)? Was he trying to get the test early on, when they were being extremely strict in regards to symptoms?

I've been asymptomatically tested twice, with no zero problem or delay getting it done.

What are the numbers of confirmed cases in Ontario that presented as asymptomatic?

The province isn't publishing that data to my knowledge. But it's certainly not enough to be judged newsworthy.

But note this:

The reason we shifted asymptomatic/non-contact testing to pharmacies is because the vast majority were turning up negative. The numbers weren't high enough to warrant immediate results or justify the load on the symptomatic system.

The "general population" asymptotic testing done at schools in Ontario has turned up surprisingly low numbers. Much lower than expected, especially considering kids are more often asymptomatic than adults, and less than the general testing positivity rate — <1% outside of a known outbreak:


Nice try.

You'll note that only one study cited in the meta-analysis, from Italy, was of a general population. In this case 85% of the population of a town showed asymptomatic cases to be 40% of the total.

The Lavezzo et al study ("Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo’"; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2488-1), is unintentionally problematic due to how early in the pandemic it was. Very little was known about Covid-19 then, and incubation periods hadn't yet been sussed out. The sampling was done over two periods, with a mean of 6.9 days offset. We now know that it can take up to 14 days for symptoms to appear.

Regardless of that, between symptomatic and asymptomatic positives the total was 91 people. 32 of those were asymptomatic. Not exactly a robust sampling number of asymptomatic infections.

You're cherry picking one portion of data and implying its representative of the whole. As a science teacher once pointed out, "data is lumpy" and this type of data is highly stochastic. Regional, genetic or social traits could account for a higher asymptomatic number, as could the smaller followup window on a number of the cases. It's the aggregate that matters. More data provides more clarity and accuracy.

This is why more data will always trump fewer, and why you can't just use confirmation bias to pull a 40% out of an aggregate 17% as proof of anything. Nor can I use the 4% asymptomatic rate in the Korean study (Park et al, "Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea. Emerging infectious diseases")

Spontaneous generation theory was disproven centuries ago, so general population testing is great, but *known* contact should guarantee a more accurate asymptomatic percentage. Implying random GenPop is more accurate is disingenuous.

The assumption that asymptomatic are super spreaders is also countered by the studies showing that asymptomatic positives are actually 40% less likely to shed enough virus to infect others. Even the original article I posted said this:

"Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people."

You're right though, without widespread antigen testing we simply cannot know and so have to carry on acting as if a virus with a fatality rate of 2-3% is an existential crisis.
It's *only* 2-3% because of intervention, both medical and social. This is how many are dying with all the things we're trying to do to stop it. Unchecked, that number would be higher.

Don't try to justify your anti-lockdown stance by trying to diminish deaths. It looks awfully selfish.

The 1918 Spanish Flu killed 2.5% of cases. And that was with far less intervention than what's been done with Covid. We didn't have ventilators (1928), anti-viral medications (1960s), corticosteroids (1950), blood thinners (1941), monoclonal antibody therapy (1975) or a vaccine (first influenza vaccine, 1930s).

Given the variables in the other studies, I wouldn't call this definitive at all.

So why are you so certain that our numbers are "multiples" higher than our confirmed positives then?
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,522
Reaction score
3,180
I was symptomatic in September/October, around the time they went to appointment-based testing. It was very difficult to get a test, and after several days of trying I decided to just wait it out in isolation. Still have no idea if I had COVID (it was just a persistent dry cough, probably bronchitis).
 

Max Sterling

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
38
So, do tell, what's the reason it's spreading so rapidly yet again in LTC? With all the knowledge, additional PPE, etc. You can't simply just declare you'll "protect LTC" unless it is 100% complete isolation. Workers will bring it in, eventually.

As someone mentioned why not have rapid testing done daily to make sure workers don't bring in the virus? Even without rapid testing, why not prioritise LTC workers and make sure they get tests back ASAP? Also if worst comes to worst why not have workers once they're tested to be negative go and work for one full week while living in the LTC and then taking one week off after? One week on and one week off would mean less traffic in and out and less chance of the virus getting into a LTC when all workers have to test negative before they start the week there.

As for hospitals, I've wondered why the government hasn't simply designated one or two hospitals in each major area to be a covid patient only hospital where all of that area's covid cases would be treated there instead of having them be spread all over the place? If the government did that, then most other hospitals could return back to treating non-covid patients and doctors and nurses wouldn't have to always take extreme measures because they know that their patients are covid free while they themselves could be tested daily or every other day to make sure they're covid free as well.

Any person could still go to any hospital to get tested or get looked at, but they would only get treated at a covid patient hospital and thus the chance of spread in hospitals would be minimized. We have hundreds of hospitals in the province so there's no reason why we couldn't do this for a couple of dozen hospitals and then let the rest get back to treating non-virus patients.

As for lack of care in LTC, that was happening LONG before Covid. Quality of Life in LTC is shamefully abysmal.

I agree and if there's any good to have come from this pandemic is that its shining a bright light on the LTC industry and how much fixing is needed.

I see. You're one of "those" people. All you have to do is eat correctly and exercise and your immune system will be able to resist the virus.

I'm saying that if the government seriously wanted to 'not overwhelm' hospitals with patients, they could try and get people to live a healthier lifestyle. Its not that difficult to change if you just put a little bit of effort into it and it would have far more longer term benefits than wreaking our lives over this virus just to keep that curve flat.

A month lockdown is not "relatively brief". Stop trying to manipulate things to suit your argument. You're also comparing a different stage of the rise in cases.

Do you even know what they actually did during the 1st wave? They had a limited shutdown/restrictions for some regions for about a month before they completely lifted the state of emergency at the end of May. Meanwhile in Ontario after close to two months of shutdown, we took another two months to get from stage 1 to stage 3 in reopening society back up and even then we still had restrictions to abide by while the Japanese were living pretty close to normal lives for most of last year.

Japan's culture is vastly different. Vast numbers of businesses voluntarily closed after the first lockdown. Early on, pachinko clubs that defied closure orders were named and shamed all over the media. Anti-maskers are unheard of there. We govern with law, they govern with shame because it holds so much more weight there.

You're mixing things up. You're talking about Japanese culture while I'm talking about the Japanese government not mandating/recommending that social distancing is necessary and no large gatherings being allowed. Now I'm sure if their government DID recommend it that many if not most Japanese people would follow the rules because that's who they are and how their society/culture is like, but the fact remains that after the state of emergency was lifted in those regions, things largely went back to normal which why we saw their transit system packed again, people eating in restaurants and drinking in bars and tons of people walking around and shopping in a manner that would cause Ford and Tory and all our medical experts to have heart attacks.

The Japanese authorities didn't go and remind their population that they needed to social distance and not gather in large groups CONSTANTLY without end EVERY SINGLE DAY like our government and experts are doing. Well except for protests which somehow are always allowed and Ford, Tory and all NEVER complained or criticised the people who took part in them for much of last year because apparently that's the one large gathering event that is covid free somehow. :rolleyes:

The point is the Japanese government and their experts didn't engage in a neverending campaign of fearmongering about the virus towards their population the way the Canadian government, our experts and the media has done to us. Instead of managing the virus and allowing people to live with it, our leaders have gone off the deep end in trying to stop at all costs it even when its completely not necessary to do so when anyone bothers to look at the numbers.

Just consider that less than 3 weeks worth of daily non-covid deaths in any given year in Ontario is enough to account for EVERY SINGLE covid death to date in ALL of Canada. Again 100,000+ people die annually in this province of various causes and we've never stopped life to lower that number......until now, because THIS particular virus is the one that we need to significantly damage our lives and society over. Oh its contagious? DESTROY EVERYTHING to stop it, rather than taking the Japanese approach and allowing people to live and only taking more drastic measures when absolutely necessary.
 

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
787
Also if worst comes to worst why not have workers once they're tested to be negative go and work for one full week while living in the LTC and then taking one week off after? One week on and one week off would mean less traffic in and out and less chance of the virus getting into a LTC when all workers have to test negative before they start the week there.
That's an idea, but the logistics require that those LTC workers can simply not be at home for a whole week. That doesn't work if you have kids, or if you have other dependents. Even if you live alone and have a dog... who gets the dog? Can you simply bring it to the home? It also requires the facility have space for a sufficient number of staff to live on site, and I don't think they have that. Maybe they could rent hotels nearby, but that's still not a solution to the dependants problem.
 

tiffer24

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
1,076
Location
Toronto
'It hurts and I’m scared': Ontario hospitals struggle amid COVID-19 surge as patients are kept waiting for life-saving surgeries.

Sitting in her living room in Richmond Hill, Ont., a deep-rooted sense of dread washed over Kristin Whitehead as she watched politicians one-by-one, on her television, explain the devastating impacts COVID-19 will have on the already-weakening health-care system.

The Stage 3 cancer patient has been waiting for surgery since October to have her growing tumour removed, but as hospital beds fill up with people hit hardest by the deadly novel coronavirus, she worries her potentially life-saving procedure will be postponed.

https://www.cp24.com/news/it-hurts-...ents-wait-for-life-saving-surgeries-1.5266887
 

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
787
I'm saying that if the government seriously wanted to 'not overwhelm' hospitals with patients, they could try and get people to live a healthier lifestyle. Its not that difficult to change if you just put a little bit of effort into it and it would have far more longer term benefits than wreaking our lives over this virus just to keep that curve flat.
There's an interesting scenario that plays out here where fewer unhealthy people means less hospital space for intensive care patients over long term, and less ability for the system to meet surge demands. I'm not sure what term to use, but it's pretty close to being a "moral hazard" between the government and the citizens, which is when one entity has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk that fall on the other, and this could actually factor into future planning now without a very tight review.

All of that being said, it appeared to not be hard to overwhelm many hospitals at all. Some of them it seemed like they were already ten people away from a tipping point of disaster.
 
Last edited:

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
2,440
I was symptomatic in September/October, around the time they went to appointment-based testing. It was very difficult to get a test, and after several days of trying I decided to just wait it out in isolation. Still have no idea if I had COVID (it was just a persistent dry cough, probably bronchitis).

My wife has had that for about 3 weeks now. It started out as a typical cold (some sinus congestion, mucus, etc.) then just degraded into a persistent dry cough. She gets Covid tested every two weeks so she can visit her dad and continually comes up negative. I think it just one of the 'common cold' strains going around this year.

Honey in her tea seems to have helped reduce the throat irritation. We have the humidity so high to help ease her cough I'm starting to see the beginnings of a rain forest climate.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,850
Reaction score
19,190
Location
Toronto/EY
My wife has had that for about 3 weeks now. It started out as a typical cold (some sinus congestion, mucus, etc.) then just degraded into a persistent dry cough. She gets Covid tested every two weeks so she can visit her dad and continually comes up negative. I think it just one of the 'common cold' strains going around this year.

Honey in her tea seems to have helped reduce the throat irritation. We have the humidity so high to help ease her cough I'm starting to see the beginnings of a rain forest climate.

The resulting growth of new species will require additional 'field guides' beyond what you got the missus for Christmas!
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
2,440
As for hospitals, I've wondered why the government hasn't simply designated one or two hospitals in each major area to be a covid patient only hospital where all of that area's covid cases would be treated there instead of having them be spread all over the place? If the government did that, then most other hospitals could return back to treating non-covid patients and doctors and nurses wouldn't have to always take extreme measures because they know that their patients are covid free while they themselves could be tested daily or every other day to make sure they're covid free as well.

Any person could still go to any hospital to get tested or get looked at, but they would only get treated at a covid patient hospital and thus the chance of spread in hospitals would be minimized. We have hundreds of hospitals in the province so there's no reason why we couldn't do this for a couple of dozen hospitals and then let the rest get back to treating non-virus patients.
I would think the sheer logistics who argue against this. You would have the first clear out the 'target' hospital. Any coincidental in-out movement might aggravate the problem we are trying to solve. I don't think the non-Covid hospitals could completely let their guard down since not all people entering a hospital are tested first; i.e. emerg., particular those coming in from out of area to places like Sunnybrook which is a regional trauma centre. If nothing else, I doubt we have the patient transfer capacity to accomplish it. Obvious, if to work at all, it could only work in a large urban area.
 

zang

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,570
Reaction score
1,822
As someone mentioned why not have rapid testing done daily to make sure workers don't bring in the virus?
Rapid testing is not a panacea. 1 in 5 rapid tests is inaccurate. How safe is a fortress under constant siege when 1 of 5 gates is unlocked?

Even without rapid testing, why not prioritise LTC workers and make sure they get tests back ASAP? Also if worst comes to worst why not have workers once they're tested to be negative go and work for one full week while living in the LTC and then taking one week off after? One week on and one week off would mean less traffic in and out and less chance of the virus getting into a LTC when all workers have to test negative before they start the week there.
Brilliant idea, except for:

a) Indentured servitude is not in their contracts.
b) You'd be paying them a minimum of 3x what they're being paid now for their time.
c) You'd lose a good number of them switching to that model.
d) They're human beings with lives. Friends, families, pets, responsibilities, other jobs, etc.
e) You're imposing a massive inconvenience on them so the mild-moderate inconvenience you're currently experiencing doesn't have to happen.

As for hospitals, I've wondered why the government hasn't simply designated one or two hospitals in each major area to be a covid patient only hospital where all of that area's covid cases would be treated there instead of having them be spread all over the place? If the government did that, then most other hospitals could return back to treating non-covid patients and doctors and nurses wouldn't have to always take extreme measures because they know that their patients are covid free while they themselves could be tested daily or every other day to make sure they're covid free as well.

Great idea. Let's overhaul and reengineer hospitals. Are you aware of the logistics of gas delivery (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) in a hospital? How much an ICU room costs to build? How much infrastructure would need to change within those buildings to accommodate a specific disease?

Any person could still go to any hospital to get tested or get looked at, but they would only get treated at a covid patient hospital and thus the chance of spread in hospitals would be minimized. We have hundreds of hospitals in the province so there's no reason why we couldn't do this for a couple of dozen hospitals and then let the rest get back to treating non-virus patients.

As it is now, most hospitals are already currently segregated into Covid/Non-Covid areas. What you're suggesting is redundant and costly.

I'm saying that if the government seriously wanted to 'not overwhelm' hospitals with patients, they could try and get people to live a healthier lifestyle. Its not that difficult to change if you just put a little bit of effort into it and it would have far more longer term benefits than wreaking our lives over this virus just to keep that curve flat.

You act like all of this is just a simple act, like flipping a switch. Health Canada and the provinces have spent decades trying to do exactly what you're toting as an instant solution, just to reduce *normal* health care costs. DECADES.

You're also assuming that a population under additional financial and emotional stress, can muster the ability suddenly get more exercise and afford to pay more to eat healthy.

Healthy eating is a privilege of wealth for most.

Do you even know what they actually did during the 1st wave? They had a limited shutdown/restrictions for some regions for about a month before they completely lifted the state of emergency at the end of May. Meanwhile in Ontario after close to two months of shutdown, we took another two months to get from stage 1 to stage 3 in reopening society back up and even then we still had restrictions to abide by while the Japanese were living pretty close to normal lives for most of last year.
I'm well aware of what they did. Are you aware that per-capita our Covid problem has been worse than theirs? At almost every single point in the past year? They reacted faster and were able to avoid a lot of problems early on. Don't act like they're in the same boat we are. They're much better off, even now in the middle of a huge spike. The worse the problem, the greater the reaction. Why is that hard to get?

You're mixing things up. You're talking about Japanese culture while I'm talking about the Japanese government not mandating/recommending that social distancing is necessary and no large gatherings being allowed.

You're not getting that they are one and the same. They are a socially driven country. Governing is done through social means far more than it is here. They *have* recommended social distancing, closed schools, and many of the things we've done here, by-the-way (in English even!): http://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/coronavirus_info_e.html (and more specifically, personal recommendations, straight from the prime minister's office: http://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/COVID19CASFlyer/PROffice3C1Page_en.pdf and https://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/COVID19Images/COVID19_NewLifeStyle.jpg)

Now I'm sure if their government DID recommend it that many if not most Japanese people would follow the rules because that's who they are and how their society/culture is like, but the fact remains that after the state of emergency was lifted in those regions, things largely went back to normal which why we saw their transit system packed again, people eating in restaurants and drinking in bars and tons of people walking around and shopping in a manner that would cause Ford and Tory and all our medical experts to have heart attacks.

The Japanese authorities didn't go and remind their population that they needed to social distance and not gather in large groups CONSTANTLY without end EVERY SINGLE DAY like our government and experts are doing. Well except for protests which somehow are always allowed and Ford, Tory and all NEVER complained or criticised the people who took part in them for much of last year because apparently that's the one large gathering event that is covid free somehow. :rolleyes:

The point is the Japanese government and their experts didn't engage in a neverending campaign of fearmongering about the virus towards their population the way the Canadian government, our experts and the media has done to us. Instead of managing the virus and allowing people to live with it, our leaders have gone off the deep end in trying to stop at all costs it even when its completely not necessary to do so when anyone bothers to look at the numbers.
And you still don't the see cultural differences driving how things work there. The fearmongering we're doing here is because people *just aren't listening*. People in Japan listen strictly to what their government asks (not tells) them to do. They don't need to be told twice; they don't need to have strict laws enforced with force or threat. They already know that failure to comply comes with a shame that can destroy their lives. That you can't seem to get that and keep implying all we have to do is be like Japan can only be chalked up to ignorance now.

If you can get the entire population of Canada to act exactly as the Japanese would act, then by all means I'll agree with you. In the mean time, stop.

Just consider that less than 3 weeks worth of daily non-covid deaths in any given year in Ontario is enough to account for EVERY SINGLE covid death to date in ALL of Canada. Again 100,000+ people die annually in this province of various causes and we've never stopped life to lower that number......until now, because THIS particular virus is the one that we need to significantly damage our lives and society over. Oh its contagious? DESTROY EVERYTHING to stop it, rather than taking the Japanese approach and allowing people to live and only taking more drastic measures when absolutely necessary.
Destroy everything? Do you still have a home? A job? Most people still do. It's been especially hard on low-income groups and small business, but that is a problem that could be treated with more money from the province and feds. Don't act like the country is a pile of rubble. An inconvenience to you is not "destroying everything". Check your privilege, yo.
 
Last edited:

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
19,220
Reaction score
8,249
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
My wife has had that for about 3 weeks now. It started out as a typical cold (some sinus congestion, mucus, etc.) then just degraded into a persistent dry cough. She gets Covid tested every two weeks so she can visit her dad and continually comes up negative. I think it just one of the 'common cold' strains going around this year.

Honey in her tea seems to have helped reduce the throat irritation. We have the humidity so high to help ease her cough I'm starting to see the beginnings of a rain forest climate.

If able to, get a UV light attached inside your furnace's air ducts.

hvac-uv-light.jpg

From link.

Ultraviolet lights were shown to kill mold, viruses and bacteria more than 100 years ago.

Today, UV lights are used for germicidal use in hospitals, restaurants and grocery stores. And they have been shown effective in killing sterilizing an HVAC system. Here are two examples:

1). In 2012, a study at Duke University Medical Center showed that UV lights killed 97% of bacteria that were resistant to antibiotics, the so-called superbug bacteria that are the toughest to kill.

2). The Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology reported in 2001 that germicidal UV radiation significantly reduces airborne fungi in air handling units.

Will it Work on the Coronavirus?​

This is a question we’re hearing often, and there might be good new! UV germicidal lights are known to kill viruses of many kinds.

Can UV Light Kill COVID-19?

UV light might kill coronavirus! According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Vaporous hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and moist heat are the most promising decontamination methods” for COVID-19 commonly called coronavirus.

Warning: The UV light must be sealed from you or pets vision.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,793
Reaction score
20,126
Location
Toronto
And you still don't the see cultural differences driving how things work there. The fearmongering we're doing here is because people *just aren't listening*. People in Japan listen strictly to what their government asks (not tells) them to do. They don't need to be told twice; they don't need to have strict laws enforced with force or threat. They already know that failure to comply comes with a shame that can destroy their lives. That you can't seem to get that and keep implying all we have to do is be like Japan can only be chalked up to ignorance now.

If you can get the entire population of Canada to act exactly as the Japanese would act, then by all means I'll agree with you. In the mean time, stop.
The Japanese were already mask wearers before COVID (a prevailing germaphobe attitude in society) - here? We are still playing softball with violators of public mask mandates and putting up with those nose-open mask wearing stupid ****s.

AoD
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,776
Reaction score
2,713
Location
Parkdale
Okay, you're smart enough to know that's anecdotal.
I'm not as dumb as I look.....I'm dumber. 😜

Of course I know it's anecdotal. I was using it as a glaring example of the broken testing system we do have, and I think it's a good example as you'll see upon reading my elaboration below.

Was your friend trying to walk in and get a test after they required appointment? Was he trying to get a test in a pharmacy (who aren't testing those with symptoms)? Was he trying to get the test early on, when they were being extremely strict in regards to symptoms?
So, at first he tried getting tested at a pharmacy. They sent him to another pharmacy to get tested....they told him they were testing symptomatic people at this other pharmacy. That was obviously wrong.
So I told him to phone telehealth where they told him he didn't qualify for testing.
By the way, he wasn't too concerned himself.....I had to bother him for over a week to go get tested and then he finally lied his way into getting an appointment at our local hospital after his symptoms worsened. He's a bit of a dick when it comes to taking care of himself. hahaha

And no, this was over the holidays, so not early on.

The province isn't publishing that data to my knowledge. But it's certainly not enough to be judged newsworthy.
How can you qualify it if it hasn't ever been published?
Do you work in the medical field? I'm kind of getting that impression from you.



But note this:

The reason we shifted asymptomatic/non-contact testing to pharmacies is because the vast majority were turning up negative. The numbers weren't high enough to warrant immediate results or justify the load on the symptomatic system.
Again, as above, you either know something the rest of us don't or you're just making things up by guessing at what those numbers are/were.
Are these data available anywhere?


The "general population" asymptotic testing done at schools in Ontario has turned up surprisingly low numbers. Much lower than expected, especially considering kids are more often asymptomatic than adults, and less than the general testing positivity rate — <1% outside of a known outbreak:


Ah, nice. So we're fine then. Seems it isn't as virulent as previously thought. :p

Nah, I'm playing. Is it possible though that children, who are known to have generally benign outcomes with this infection, are testing negative in large numbers because of inherent immune response leading to early virion elimination upon infection?
I'm assuming their immune response is the reason they have had generally benign outcomes...I don't know the actual mechanism by which this is the case.

The Lavezzo et al study ("Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo’"; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2488-1), is unintentionally problematic due to how early in the pandemic it was. Very little was known about Covid-19 then, and incubation periods hadn't yet been sussed out. The sampling was done over two periods, with a mean of 6.9 days offset. We now know that it can take up to 14 days for symptoms to appear.
Fair point. It'd be interesting to see if there have been any such follow up studies done in Europe during the second wave.
The Czechs might be cooking something up as they have had at points the highest per capita infection rates in the second wave and are also testing robustly...including widespread antigen testing.

Regardless of that, between symptomatic and asymptomatic positives the total was 91 people. 32 of those were asymptomatic. Not exactly a robust sampling number of asymptomatic infections.
Yeah, that is weak, but then so was the entire meta-analysis from what I could tell.

You're cherry picking one portion of data and implying its representative of the whole.
There wasn't much to go by in that meta-analysis. The other studies presented were also problematice for other reasons. You're right though, I went with what was there which wasn't much of anything.


As a science teacher once pointed out, "data is lumpy" and this type of data is highly stochastic.
I told you I was dumber even than I look and you go and throw down words like this. Never even heard of this stochastic. Is this some stats term?
Don't worry, I looked it up so I know what it means, but geeeeeeeze. :p


Regional, genetic or social traits could account for a higher asymptomatic number, as could the smaller followup window on a number of the cases. It's the aggregate that matters. More data provides more clarity and accuracy.
Facts.

This is why more data will always trump fewer, and why you can't just use confirmation bias to pull a 40% out of an aggregate 17% as proof of anything. Nor can I use the 4% asymptomatic rate in the Korean study (Park et al, "Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea. Emerging infectious diseases")
I used that one because it was the only study cited done on a general population.
As I said, that whole meta-analysis is kinda bunk.

Spontaneous generation theory was disproven centuries ago, so general population testing is great, but *known* contact should guarantee a more accurate asymptomatic percentage. Implying random GenPop is more accurate is disingenuous.
I don't see why general population testing should have anything to do with spontaneous generation, but it makes sense that known contact with infected individuals should be more accurate than general population testing but in that meta-analysis, it looks like they used studies that may have had a bias toward higher viral load-bearing cases which would likely lead to higher incidence of both transmission and likelihood of increased symptoms in contacts.


The assumption that asymptomatic are super spreaders is also countered by the studies showing that asymptomatic positives are actually 40% less likely to shed enough virus to infect others. Even the original article I posted said this:

"Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people."
Yeah, I've never doubted that asymptomatic carriers were less likely to transmit the virus. That seems intuitive.


It's *only* 2-3% because of intervention, both medical and social. This is how many are dying with all the things we're trying to do to stop it. Unchecked, that number would be higher.

Yes but the fact remains that it is 2-3%. The reason why it's so low doesn't matter. I think you're overstating how much social intervention has on the fatality rate.
It's quite probably as low as it is almost entirely due to medical intervention and the nature of the illness.
We know this virus disproportionately affects certain demographics, chiefly already ill people.

Don't try to justify your anti-lockdown stance by trying to diminish deaths. It looks awfully selfish.

I'm not diminishing deaths. I'm just considering the deaths of certain people for what they are: inevitable.
I'm also not "anti-lockdown"; I'm anti-reactionary nonsense.

You know what's selfish? Sabotaging the chance at a decent life for a generation of wee people who can't speak for themselves.

I don't see what's selfish about advocating for the wellbeing of children.

I'll say it again: I value the potential and future lives of children over that of decrepit oldsters or people living stunted lives due to chronic disease. I won't apologise for that and there's nothing selfish about it. I don't even have children, but I do have people with chronic disease in my life (ie see above).

A balance between the interests of these two disparate groups has not been found and that is to our collective detriment.


The 1918 Spanish Flu killed 2.5% of cases. And that was with far less intervention than what's been done with Covid. We didn't have ventilators (1928), anti-viral medications (1960s), corticosteroids (1950), blood thinners (1941), monoclonal antibody therapy (1975) or a vaccine (first influenza vaccine, 1930s).
Yeah, but it was a different virus. What's the fatality rate of ebola?

So why are you so certain that our numbers are "multiples" higher than our confirmed positives then?
Clearly I'm going on old information from early in the pandemic and stand corrected. I'm still not convinced by that rather faulty meta-analysis but it's sure looking like the numbers are faaaaar lower than at first thought.


Can I go out and play now? :D
 
Last edited:

Top