Where is Quack FaoChi discussing this science?

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
These Chinese just like WHO are not very honest. Neither is Fao Chi.

The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.

We ALL must wear masks because it is assumed all the infected including asymptomatic can transmit the virus.

China does have much more intensive tracking than we ever will.

Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated.

Fox can't report on this.

In essence, what the study of 10 million people confirmed is what many people, doctors, scientists and World Health Organization already suspected.

Fao Chi transmitted report 2,000, 000 cases. Why didn't he tell us how many would be asymptomatic?

Of course 2 million number was pulled out of his anatomy from the "webs"

Just a reminder, years ago I hired a Senior Director of Epidemiology from a large teaching hospital. His whole department was fired to save costs after a merger. I have a proven interest in epidemiology. Now he worked in the lab. Not in a cube farm away from a hospital like Fao Chi.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
We ALL must wear masks because it is assumed all the infected including asymptomatic can transmit the virus.

China does have much more intensive tracking than we ever will.
I see the fake doctor/lawyer/scientist/CPA/rancher/economist/OB-GYN couldn't be bothered to read the actual Nature paper. Too many big sciency words for his high school vocabulary.

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China

Abstract: Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown

From the conclusion:

Existing laboratory virus culture and genetic studies showed that the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 virus may be weakening over time, and the newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases. With the centralized isolation and treatment of all COVID-19 cases during the lockdown period in Wuhan, the risk of residents being infected in the community has been greatly reduced. When susceptible residents are exposed to a low dose of virus, they may tend to be asymptomatic as a result of their own immunity. Serological antibody testing in the current study found that at least 63% of asymptomatic positive cases were actually infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nonetheless, it is too early to be complacent, because of the existence of asymptomatic positive cases and high level of susceptibility in residents in Wuhan. Public health measures for the prevention and control of COVID-19 epidemic, including wearing masks, keeping safe social distancing in Wuhan should be sustained. Especially, vulnerable populations with weakened immunity or co-morbidities, or both, should continue to be appropriately shielded.
 

LifeIn

Active member
So here is a person WHO is not totally clueless on "isolation" protocols.
Point #1: This was from a June 8th news conference. It is now 6 months later. We have a lot more data now.
Point #2: Dr. Van Kerkhove makes the important distinction between true asymptomatics (never develop symptoms), presymptomatics (don’t have symptoms at the time of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 but later develop symptoms) and paucisymptomatics (have atypical or very mild symptoms). She describes that unpublished data suggest “asymptomatics” (not further clarified) do not transmit infection. This may well be true. Detailed contact tracing from Taiwan as well as the first European transmission chain in Germany suggested that true asymptomatics rarely transmit.

However, those (and many other) studies have found that paucisymptomatic transmission can occur, and in particular, in the German study, they found that transmission often appeared to occur before or on the day symptoms first appeared (i.e. presymptomatic transmission).

So using this one comment, taken out of context, to justify throwing caution to the wind with respect to wearing masks or isolation is not justified. I think Dr. Van Kerkhove would agree with that. It is not sufficient to expect each individual to accurately assess his own symptoms and decide for himself if he needs to wear a mask or isolate. If we had only people who thought they were sick wear masks or isolating, we would be seeing double the number of deaths we have now, at least.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Point #1: This was from a June 8th news conference. It is now 6 months later. We have a lot more data now.
Point #2: Dr. Van Kerkhove makes the important distinction between true asymptomatics (never develop symptoms), presymptomatics (don’t have symptoms at the time of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 but later develop symptoms) and paucisymptomatics (have atypical or very mild symptoms). She describes that unpublished data suggest “asymptomatics” (not further clarified) do not transmit infection. This may well be true. Detailed contact tracing from Taiwan as well as the first European transmission chain in Germany suggested that true asymptomatics rarely transmit.

However, those (and many other) studies have found that paucisymptomatic transmission can occur, and in particular, in the German study, they found that transmission often appeared to occur before or on the day symptoms first appeared (i.e. presymptomatic transmission).

So using this one comment, taken out of context, to justify throwing caution to the wind with respect to wearing masks or isolation is not justified. I think Dr. Van Kerkhove would agree with that. It is not sufficient to expect each individual to accurately assess his own symptoms and decide for himself if he needs to wear a mask or isolate. If we had only people who thought they were sick wear masks or isolating, we would be seeing double the number of deaths we have now, at least.

Are you a medical know it all?
All you can do it cut and paste.
I have worn a surgical mask 10,000 hours more that you and Quack Fao chi combined.
Who is throwing caution to the wind?

Who is blowing wind?

Data?

This is your political view. Just like math outsiders do. Funny the political AMA was against HSQ and flipped before the election.
You can join your left winger Amen corner and knock my credentials.

You already cobbled up "explaining" and putting political spin on his 2,000,000 cases.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
So here is a person WHO is not totally clueless on "isolation" protocols.


Go ahead and she hints in the right direction but

As you can see from the video explanation, in June 2020 Ms. Kerkhove could not identify a single study or case that was traced to asymptomatic spread; but scientists still thought it might be possible so she -and others- kept using the “very rare” terminology.

Our locals do not understand "isolation" protocols
Have never dealt with isolation cases so they will need to Google up greatly so that they can start quibbling.
 

LifeIn

Active member
Are you a medical know it all?
Typical ad hominen.

All you can do it cut and paste.
That depends on what you cut and paste, not whether you use Ctrl-V or right-click, select "Paste".
I have worn a surgical mask 10,000 hours more that you and Quack Fao chi combined.
If you want medal for that, you would be better off shooting Cy-bugs in "Hero's Duty", and you probably still won't do as well as Ralph.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Are you a medical know it all?
All you can do it cut and paste.
I have worn a surgical mask 10,000 hours more that you and Quack Fao chi combined.
Who is throwing caution to the wind?

Who is blowing wind?

Data?

This is your political view. Just like math outsiders do. Funny the political AMA was against HSQ and flipped before the election.
You can join your left winger Amen corner and knock my credentials.

You already cobbled up "explaining" and putting political spin on his 2,000,000 cases.
Will your fat loser-boy march out next month or will he be wheeled out in a strait-jacket now that his death toll is about one per minute?
 

vibise

Active member
These Chinese just like WHO are not very honest. Neither is Fao Chi.



We ALL must wear masks because it is assumed all the infected including asymptomatic can transmit the virus.

China does have much more intensive tracking than we ever will.



Fox can't report on this.



Fao Chi transmitted report 2,000, 000 cases. Why didn't he tell us how many would be asymptomatic?

Of course 2 million number was pulled out of his anatomy from the "webs"

Just a reminder, years ago I hired a Senior Director of Epidemiology from a large teaching hospital. His whole department was fired to save costs after a merger. I have a proven interest in epidemiology. Now he worked in the lab. Not in a cube farm away from a hospital like Fao Chi.
On another thread you are claiming to be an OB/GYN who delivers babies, and now you are claiming to be, what, a hospital director who hires epidemiologists?

You need to get your stories straight about your expertise.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
“There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask,” Fauci told Spectrum News DC on February 14.

Based on what? It is easy for medical professionals to catch Quacks.

All the real Pathologists I know knew this was an infectious disease.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
On another thread you are claiming to be an OB/GYN who delivers babies, and now you are claiming to be, what, a hospital director who hires epidemiologists?

You need to get your stories straight about your expertise.
You made that up. In fact I have posted I am not an OB doc. Why do liberals make stuff up? I never claimed to be a hospital director. You made that up. I hired an person who was a Director of an Epidemiology Department. You need to improve your stories.
I do have professional training in pattern recognition. I see so many atheeists here make claims like you just did without gathering information.
While you are making stuff up, go ahead and tell me what the Epidemiologist I hired specializes in in his medical practice.
 

vibise

Active member
“There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask,” Fauci told Spectrum News DC on February 14.

Based on what? It is easy for medical professionals to catch Quacks.

All the real Pathologists I know knew this was an infectious disease.
So you have always advocated that all Americans wear masks when out in public?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
“There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask,” Fauci told Spectrum News DC on February 14.

Based on what? It is easy for medical professionals to catch Quacks.

All the real Pathologists I know knew this was an infectious disease.

Another Quack

Jan. 30 whitewashing China’s deception: “The speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive and beyond words.” He called it a “new standard of outbreak response.”
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
WHO account on January 14: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.” That same day, the Wuhan Health Commission’s public bulletin declared, “We have not found proof for human-to-human transmission.”
Quacks and their political deceptions

As dirty as the Global Warming false profits.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
So sorry
Left out Birx Quack

An AP article outlines how Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus response, instituted a series of travel rules and regulations for the nation and then personally ignored them by traveling out-of-state with three households of her family members to enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday – unencumbered by her own dictates.
 

LifeIn

Active member
“There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask,” Fauci told Spectrum News DC on February 14.

Based on what?
Based on the conditions at the time. Covid was not widespread. Fauci was correct at the time this statement was made (Feb. 14th). But you can bet that workers in the nursing homes that had covid were wearing masks, and Fauci would be in agreement with that.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
(on "no clear evidence of transmission on Jan. 14th")

The statement was true at the time it was made. Now we have more evidence, and we know better. That is how science works.
You don't know how science works.

Your political whitewashing excuses are pathetic.

1 You can't prove there wasn't evidence 45 days before that.
2 You don't understand the cover-up.
3 You keep digging a deeper hole.

Not unusual to dig a deeper hole when you are stuck with fake news.

Who is this "we"? You are a distant outsider.

Do you think Fao Chi earned a Nobel Prize? Like you insisted Mike Mann was awarded one?
 

LifeIn

Active member
You don't know how science works.
You have no proof you know any better - only your claims of personal authority. Have you ever heard of the argument from authority fallacy? You have provided everyone here a perfect example of that.
2 You don't understand the cover-up.
You mean the Chinese cover-up at the beginning of the outbreak? Yes I understand it. I also know that it is over. They failed to maintain the coverup, so that is old news - nearly a year old now. Try to keep up, OK?

Who is this "we"? You are a distant outsider.
Everyone, including you.
Do you think Fao Chi earned a Nobel Prize?
Dr. Fauci did not win a Nobel Prize. But he did earn these:
Since you tout your expertise, I'm sure you will favor us with your list of award, eh?
 
Top