rossum
Well-known member
... and by asymptomatic carriers as well.
No Jab for me...here's why...Web site
- Thread starter CrowCross
- Start date
RARELY. Slim to none at best.
Your evidence is?
Bonnie
Super Member
Okay, so you were paraphrasing. That was not terribly clear.
He did day "unlikely" but "rare" does not mean NONE. It is "rare" to have "breakthrough" infections after being vaccinated even with the best vaccines, but it can still happen. So one cannot say "none."We now know that asymptomatic people CAN spread the virus, as they carry about the same payload of viruses as those with symptoms, but much less effieciently. But they don't drive pandemics, because they don't usually go around hacking and coughing all over the place. Knowledge of the virus and how it works continues to evolve.
But that JAMA Internal Medicine article I linked to on another thread did say that asymptomatic people CAN spread the virus, though less efficiently, since they usually do not cough or sneeze.
Many, many times I have read articles in magazines and the newspaper during flu season, that warn that even asymptomatic people can transmit the flu to others, even if the asymptomatic people feel just fine. And covid-19 is more contageous than even the flu, according to an article i read in the newspaper a few months ago.
Johns Hopkins also has this to say:
COVID-19 vs. the Flu
Here is a bit more, from last November, that explains why covid-19 seems to be more contagious:
Why Is COVID-19 More Contagious Than The Flu?
An infectious disease specialist explains how COVID-19 spreads and why it can be easier to catch than the flu.
www.henryford.com
One of the reasons is that the incubation period for covid-19 is much longer than for flu--flu is round 2-14 days, but covid is up to 2 weeks, so asymptomatic people could be shedding the virus without even being aware of it.
Last edited:
Okay, so you were paraphrasing. That was not terribly clear.
I said SLIM to none. That is RARE.
RARELY...
Right...so it is RARE.
Bonnie
Super Member
I didn't until this thread, since I don't watch Fox or any other program for national/international news. I never even heard of the guy until last week. I only occasionally watch TV for local news. National and international news I get from the newspaper.
Bonnie
Super Member
But NOT NONE. Though "slim to none" can mean "EXTREMELY unlikely, VERY rare."
Rare meaning:
So, while it would be rare, I don't think it is EXTREMEMLY rare or VERY rare. Just...rare. But maybe not as rare as we think, according to my link about that JAMA article, since asymptomatic people don't stay home and go about among other people, and they could still sneeze and cough, due to allergies, dust, etc.
But we DO know more about the virus now than we did a year ago. Knowledge about it is evolving and probably will for some time to come.
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
Ferengi, the answer is in my post no. 1465, with a link to an article about something from the JAMA Internal Medicine journal.
So, while asymptomatic people are far less likely to spread the virus than symptomatic, it can still happen and their virus payload is about the same as for symptomatic people, according to the article.
So, while asymptomatic people are far less likely to spread the virus than symptomatic, it can still happen and their virus payload is about the same as for symptomatic people, according to the article.
Bonnie
Super Member
Yes, indeed rare--but maybe not as rare as we may think. More studies need to be done on this, I think.
IOW you have nothingFerengi, the answer is in my post no. 1465, with a link to an article about something from the JAMA Internal Medicine journal.
So, while asymptomatic people are far less likely to spread the virus than symptomatic, it can still happen and their virus payload is about the same as for symptomatic people, according to the article.
CrowCross
Super Member
So the buzz word is...asymptomatic people...
What I hear is that they don't spread the China virus. Some say they can spread the virus. I've never seen the result of test that say one or the other.
For the most part asymptomatic people don't even know they had it...or have it unless they get tested and we do know there were a lot of false positives that probably made "asymptomatic people".
Wow. You're the only person I know of that doesn't know who Tucker is.
Right....RARE. No one is going to get covid walking passed someone in a grocery store or any other store or sitting in a restaurant.
I disagree....I believe it's EXTREMELY rare.
Yes, indeed rare--but maybe not as rare as we may think. More studies need to be done on this, I think.
And they'll probably find that it's EXTREMELY rare.
Fauci is a highly respected scientist, and while he made missteps in the beginning, he was dealing with a previously unknown virus, and some of the earliest statements had to be revised as more data became available. This is how science works. It is not like religion where there is an aversion to making changes to doctrine. Or like some political sectors, where changed opinions are decried as "flip-flops" even when those changes are warranted by new data.
Do you seriously think that unvaccinated people will be loaded into boxcars and sent to death camps? that is what your analogy suggests.
No one is proposing forced vaccination, but if people don't want to take this precaution against infection, then why is it wrong to impose restrictions on their activities depending on the circumstances? "Responsibility" used to be a Republican mantra, but apparently not when it comes to how to behave in a pandemic.
Why do conservatives think that people who work as scientists and get paid for their jobs should not be trusted to present scientific information? Why is the fact that scientists get paid as scientists somehow make their public comments suspect?
Instead you think that political lobbyists or RW radio or television hosts or bloggers are good sources of information?
Except you cannot name them and connect the dots to show how these scientists you do not trust are somehow influenced to say things that are not true.
So who is it who is forcing people like Fauci, in your opinion, to lie to the public?
Name them. You seem so convinced, so you should be able to name them, right?
Magdalena
Well-known member
”Why is it wrong to impose restrictions on their activities...” You actually wrote that, and yet you claim no one is being forced to be vaccinated. Which activities will it come to? Being able to buy groceries? Going outside?
There are democrats, including politicians, who actually did say unvaccinated people should be rounded up and isolated from everyone else. The same thing they said about anyone who supported Trump. “Re-education camps” is what they called them.
No.
If you really think that, then present the evidence that this happens. You cannot. Just because you believe something, does not make it true.
If science is faked, then the results are flawed and subsequent studies based on those earlier flawed results will not work. This is how fraud or even honest mistakes can be discovered and corrected.
We cannot hope to have a functional scientific enterprise that supports technological innovations if flawed results are somehow routinely protected and covered up. We, in the USA, are highly respected for the innovative and accurate science we produce. If our results and conclusions cannot be supported in followup experiments, then we would destroy our reputation and our primacy in science.
We don't do what you are baselessly accusing us of doing.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."