newguy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:12 am
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:41 pm
newguy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:54 am
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:35 pm
It's a lying ching chong study but...
SAR of 0.3% for asymptomatic.
If true, lmao at masks.
"Results:
Among 3410 close contacts, 127 (3.7% [95% CI, 3.1% to 4.4%]) were secondarily infected. Of these 127 persons, 8 (6.3% [CI, 2.1% to 10.5%]) were asymptomatic. Of the 119 symptomatic cases, 20 (16.8%) were defined as mild, 87 (73.1%) as moderate, and 12 (10.1%) as severe or critical. Compared with the household setting (10.3%), the secondary attack rate was lower for exposures in healthcare settings (1.0%; odds ratio [OR], 0.09 [CI, 0.04 to 0.20]) and on public transportation (0.1%; OR, 0.01 [CI, 0.00 to 0.08]). The secondary attack rate increased with the severity of index cases, from 0.3% (CI, 0.0 to 1.0%) for asymptomatic to 3.3% (CI, 1.8% to 4.8%) for mild, 5.6% (CI, 4.4% to 6.8%) for moderate, and 6.2% (CI, 3.2% to 9.1%) for severe or critical cases. Index cases with expectoration were associated with higher risk for secondary infection (13.6% vs. 3.0% for index cases without expectoration; OR, 4.81 [CI, 3.35 to 6.93])."
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671
I'm not sure how the above leads to lmao at masks?
Not trying to be dick, but trying to figure out your reasoning, because I see it and to me it reinforces the idea that masks are effective.
The conclusion from the study was that household transmission was the main setting for transmission of the virus (the setting where you don't wear a mask). And that you are less likely to get it in a health care setting/hospital, where you do wear a mask.
I was just in a conference/workshop last week with a high up at one of our local hospitals and he was going over what we know about safely opening up work settings, etc. One of his points was that out of all the cases they've from their hospital staff, well over half of those happened outside of work, and a high majority of the remaining cases were transmitted between staff at break rooms, etc. when people weren't wearing masks.
The rationale behind mask wearing for the general public was that infection via asymptomatics was sig. This study contradicts that.
IDK. I struggle to grasp the big picture on all of this.
Can we catch Covid from people are are asymptomatic? Is that a thing? And what would be conditions?
But one problem is that people are stupid as fuck and do not do a good job self reporting or regulating. I know several people who have been sick and were out and about. They ended up not having the covid, but what if they had? Would them wearing a mask protect others?
I mean, mild symptoms is symptomatic.
There are a lot of moving parts and some are chaotic. It is complicated.
And the truth is, we don't know very much about how respiratory viruses spread. Fwiw, I personally think the "outbreak" stage is not when the virus spreads. Symptoms are triggered by external factors (vitD etc etc?) and then we see the activation of latent/dormant viruses. The spread was sig (years?) prior to the outbreak. It's been noted for hundreds of years that the "spread" is too fast for sick to well transmission. And also the latitudinal differences in disease curves don't work very well if at all with sick to well transmission.
If the model is spread, then I think the primary vector is oral/fecal via superspreaders. But who tf knows? No one sadly. But it might be via aerosols or droplets.
That being said, we do know that the majority of infected ppl are asymptomatic. And I believe the overwhelming majority of infected are asymptomatic.
If these ppl, as the study suggests, are not transmitters in any meaningful sense and at the same time their infection contributed to herd resistance/immunity, masking them even if it works is either useless or counter-productive.
The logic is asypt spread unknowingly and eventually and inexorably spreads to vulnerable and then deaths. If no unknowing meaningful spread, then no practical influence on deaths of vulnerable. And, it might even extend the exposure of the vulnerable if the asympt are removed from herd resistance.
Your point about ppl being stupid when symptomatic is a separate issue.
It is obvious to me at this point that the accumulated wisdom of medical professionals was right: treat the sick, protect the vulnerable DIRECTLY and get to herd resistance ASAP.
At absolute best, masking ppl was an exercise in Rube Goldberg mechanics involving effecting psychology and calibrating fear. Which is what Fauci did with AIDS (heteros can get it too!) and what he is doing now. He consciously tries to maintain the optimal state of fear. Listen to him talk, he gives and takes away.
At worst, it is a tool to extend the time until Herd Resistance is reached in the hopes of forcing a probably useless vaccine on the populace for profit.
