Zero science supporting asymptomatic spread. Peer reviewed study was rushed/flawed

[SAN compnerd]

This is the study that Fauci cited as justification for wearing masks and social distancing. He knows this science was invalid, but he still insists that this can spread from asymptomatic people. Weird how this guy ignores the science when he wants or needs to, but then points to science over HCQ.

Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”

Yes, no doubt. Except the facts.

The letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.”

But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, RKI and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong

This false info will live on in the minds of Americans for a very, very long time. In a decade stupid people will be telling tales of how Motrin was harmful and Corona beer was bad and how this spread asymptomatically. No science behind any of it.

There is still a risk of people with mild cold like symptoms, not enough to make them stay at home, to spread this.

[Senko]

Thanks for the article. Doubt it will get much play on the MSM.

[dizzyblonde]

Government is like management. They have to be seen doing something even if the something they're doing is only making things worse.

[as_rocketman]

One study was flawed != there is no science to support this position.

Viral load for presymptomatic victims is comparable to that for fully symptomatic victims

Presymptomatic spread observed in Singapore

Italian evidence that isolating asymptomatic carriers helps control the spread

The rate of contagion among asymptomatic / presymptomatic carriers still have significant error bars, but to claim it doesn't happen is delusionally optimistic.

[stonefly-2]

Government is like management. They have to be seen doing something even if the something they're doing is only making things worse.

They also have information they don't necessarily feel you need to know about.

My healthy cynicism for government is doing just fine thanks,

i believe i will have a little faith now that management standards have improved.

[SAN compnerd]

One study was flawed != there is no science to support this position.

Viral load for presymptomatic victims is comparable to that for fully symptomatic victims

Presymptomatic spread observed in Singapore

Italian evidence that isolating asymptomatic carriers helps control the spread

The rate of contagion among asymptomatic / presymptomatic carriers still have significant error bars, but to claim it doesn't happen is delusionally optimistic.

I thought it was significant to use the study that Dr. Fauci used to shut down the nation. He knows it was wrong, but hasn't changed his position.

Edit: The three papers you linked to are all somewhat related.

Such transmission modes have not been definitively documented for COVID-19, although cases of presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmissions have been reported in China (1,2) and possibly occurred in a nursing facility in King County, Washington (3).

It cites worthless Chinese data, and one of the other links about Washington state. The Washington paper refers to itself as an editorial. I am going to assume this means it's not peer reviewed and thus not conclusive.

The Italian paper starts like this:

An Italian academic has claimed striking evidence that most
people infected with covid-19 show no symptoms but are still
able to infect others, which he says has huge implications for
testing policy, particularly in hospitals.

So it appears to me that none of those papers rise to the level of true scientific rigor, making them all inconclusive. The one 'study' that did supposedly rise to the proper level of scientific rigor and claimed to prove asymptomatic spread was flawed and retracted.

So no concrete scientific proof of asymptomatic spread, just as I said above.

[as_rocketman]

So it appears to me that none of those papers rise to the level of true scientific rigor, making them all inconclusive. The one 'study' that did supposedly rise to the proper level of scientific rigor and claimed to prove asymptomatic spread was flawed and retracted.

So no concrete scientific proof of asymptomatic spread, just as I said above.

This is special pleading. It only appears that way to you because you don't understand the scientific language, or the standards for rigor.

The reason it's special pleading is because you apply the opposite standard (your own) to your source. If you read the whole article that you cited, you will find the following passage:

Fauci, for one, still believes it does. "This evening I telephoned one of my colleagues in China who is a highly respected infectious diseases scientist and health official," he says. "He said that he is convinced that there is asymptomatic infection and that some asymptomatic people are transmitting infection." But even if they do, asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says. People who cough or sneeze are more likely to spread the virus, the agency wrote in a situation report on Saturday.

Now, since asymptomatic people do both cough and sneeze, well...

You should use this as a lesson in confirmation bias. Yours is very strong.

[SAN compnerd]

This is special pleading. It only appears that way to you because you don't understand the scientific language, or the standards for rigor.

The reason it's special pleading is because you apply the opposite standard (your own) to your source. If you read the whole article that you cited, you will find the following passage:



Now, since asymptomatic people do both cough and sneeze, well...

You should use this as a lesson in confirmation bias. Yours is very strong.

"This evening I telephoned one of my colleagues in China who is a highly respected infectious diseases scientist and health official," he says. "He said that he is convinced that there is asymptomatic infection and that some asymptomatic people are transmitting infection."

Oh well if Dr. Fauci talked to a respected infectious disease expert in China then there's clearly no need for proper scientific rigor, we can just take the CCP's word, via Fauci's mouth, as gospel. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I mean certainly there is no possibility that the CCP is spreading propaganda through one of our 'experts' to increase the economic damage, no, not the CCP, we can trust them and their mouthpieces like Fauci.

It's interesting seeing you speak about scientific rigor, then insult me, then shift to a non scientific source to 'prove' your point.

I'm just wondering, when the science is done in a couple of years and it turns out there was no scientific proof of asymptomatic transmission, will you be offering an apology?

[Cresquin]

is not peer reviewed and thus not conclusive.

Peer review also does not make science "conclusive". It just means that the orthodoxy has been followed to the satisfaction of a handful of people, with varying degrees of rigor per discipline and per board.

More correct new ideas have a harder time passing peer review than do incorrect old ideas. Conservation bias.

On the subject of asymptomatic spread, if it didn't happen, this would be the first communicable disease in history that could not be carried and spread by people who weren't showing symptoms.

[gdr_11]

"believe, might, could, likely". These inconclusive opinions are what have driven us to the brink.

Asymptomatic people might transmit the disease or they might not. Rather than these experts admitting the lack of definitive indisputable evidence, they choose to push their beliefs and opinions.

[skirunman]

Peer review also does not make science "conclusive". It just means that the orthodoxy has been followed to the satisfaction of a handful of people, with varying degrees of rigor per discipline and per board.

More correct new ideas have a harder time passing peer review than do incorrect old ideas. Conservation bias.

On the subject of asymptomatic spread, if it didn't happen, this would be the first communicable disease in history that could not be carried and spread by people who weren't showing symptoms.

Exactly.

The issue is using absolutes. It is most likely that "some" asymptomatic people are transmitting the virus. If this is 1%, 50% or 100% of those that are asymptomatic is what needs to be determined as many of the models we are using now assume long incubation times with much asymptomatic spread.

[as_rocketman]

Oh well if Dr. Fauci talked to a respected infectious disease expert in China then there's clearly no need for proper scientific rigor, we can just take the CCP's word, via Fauci's mouth, as gospel. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

That's not what I said. I gave you cites. You rejected them, on the sole bases of (1) not yet undergoing peer review -- that takes a LONG TIME, and right now papers are being preprinted -- along with (2) they all happen to reference a paper that had a problem.

That's not a valid assessment. More accurately, it's special pleading. The same criticisms apply to any paper, including any you might care to bring up.

I mean certainly there is no possibility that the CCP is spreading propaganda through one of our 'experts' to increase the economic damage, no, not the CCP, we can trust them and their mouthpieces like Fauci.

Now this boggles the mind. The CCP is and has been spreading misinformation. Specifically, they've consistently underclaimed the threat. This is basically what you're doing.

Dr. Fauci is not a "CCP mouthpiece," if he were you haven't proven that fact, and I'm not relying on his opinion. Ad hominem, appeal to motive, and red herring all in one short paragraph.

It's interesting seeing you speak about scientific rigor, then insult me, then shift to a non scientific source to 'prove' your point.

The non-scientific source I "shifted" to was the source you opened the discussion with. For you to deny your own source now as a way to engage my argument is a very rarely seen form of apophasis. I'll give you credit for thinking outside the box, but it hardly helps your position.

I'm just wondering, when the science is done in a couple of years and it turns out there was no scientific proof of asymptomatic transmission, will you be offering an apology?

Assuming that happens, of course not. Abandoning disproven hypothesis is not a form of apology. It's just called "Science."

[as_rocketman]

"believe, might, could, likely". These inconclusive opinions are what have driven us to the brink.

To some extent yes, but little is certain this early in the disaster.

To quote the immortal Patton, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."

"Asymptomatic people might transmit the disease or they might not. Rather than these experts admitting the lack of definitive indisputable evidence, they choose to push their beliefs and opinions.

Read papers, don't rely on experts on TV, even the ones on our side. One of those I cited shows very clearly the viral load in asymptomatic / presymptomatic peple is similar to those with symptoms. It's not iron-clad proof that they are also contagious, but it's pretty damn close.

[sacrvrrat]

[as_rocketman]

Obviously that's true, but there is a large gulf between acknowledging uncertainties and rejecting everything that isn't "scientifically conclusive." The latter is a crutch used to support confirmation bias, also known as sophistry.

We do know or suspect enough about the virus to make some policy recommendations. Now, arguing the pros and cons of each, trying to quantify uncertainty... that's all fair game. However, we can't even have that conversation if we misrepresent what we do know so far.