Meanwhile in Italy

It's like people just can't put two and two together depending on fear level.

If 95% of + cases in Italy are now asymptomatic then that means it's no longer a problem.

As for people claiming it's more deadly than the flu well it's clearly not as more and more asymptomatic cases get tested the IFR drops significantly the best estimates from the WHO and CDC is between 0.2%-0.4% which is the same as a regular flu season.
The paper that came out at the start of the week warning about winter from the Imperial college, using their maths and the current WHO CDC IFR means for their prediction to come true would mean that 84 million people would need to be infected in the UK.
Small problem with that though.
 
If 95% of + cases in Italy are now asymptomatic then that means it's no longer a problem.

How is that not a problem?

We have no idea of the long term effect the virus may have on asymtomatic people and asymtomatic people can still pass the virus to others potentially more vulnerable.

It will only ever not be a problem when effective treatments make it not a problem.
 
How is that not a problem?

We have no idea of the long term effect the virus may have on asymtomatic people and asymtomatic people can still pass the virus to others potentially more vulnerable.

It will only ever not be a problem when effective treatments make it not a problem.

Alvez was putting 2+2 together based his level of fear factor
 
How is that not a problem?

We have no idea of the long term effect the virus may have on asymtomatic people and asymtomatic people can still pass the virus to others potentially more vulnerable.

It will only ever not be a problem when effective treatments make it not a problem.

Speculation on long term impacts of a virus on a patient that has no symptoms and does not develop them before the virus is no longer present is beyond absurd.

As to passing the virus on the fact that 95% are asymptomatic shows that this is not happening.

Finally your 3rd point there are effective treatments in the exact same way there are effective treatments for flu (which again has the same IFR according to the CDC and WHO).
 
Speculation on long term impacts of a virus on a patient that has no symptoms and does not develop them before the virus is no longer present is beyond absurd.

As to passing the virus on the fact that 95% are asymptomatic shows that this is not happening.

Finally your 3rd point there are effective treatments in the exact same way there are effective treatments for flu (which again has the same IFR according to the CDC and WHO).

It is not beyond absurd- obviously we do not know. Hopefully the impact is negligible and this is likely the case.

I don't think you can presume the asymptomatic carriers are not able to pass it on.

I need to get clarity on your argument that this is no more deadly than the flu- what about all the death? Are you saying because so many more people have contracted this virus it technically doesn't kill as many (so the flu doesnt spread as much, or run through the population so quickly so is likely less lethal).
 

Really interesting one- it will be interesting to see the public health findings and whether there were instances of the virus in family or friends of any of the sailors/ people they came into contact with in the quarantine facility/ food suppliers etc.. This will possibly bring clarity to an extended incubation period/ breech of quarantine procedures/ food contamination/ surface contamination/ airborne contamination within aircon in a hotel.

I do think that if you have internal airconditioning on a cruise ship/ hotel etc and someone is coughing it seem plausible droplets then become airborne. Does this count as airborne transmission?
 
As to passing the virus on the fact that 95% are asymptomatic shows that this is not happening.
There is no evidence showing that asymptomatic people cannot spread the virus. In fact, the evidence of asymptomatic spread is one of the main reasons why almost all medical authorities now recommend the wearing of face coverings or masks. As a WHO report based on a systematic review of all the published data points out, the most we can say is that, "individuals without symptoms are less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms."
 
"I need to get clarity on your argument that this is no more deadly than the flu- what about all the death?"

It's tough to compare with history, but there have been multiple influenza pandemics of at least the scale of Covid-19. In 1957 for example, 33,000 people are estimated to have died from the flu pandemic in the UK. And that was with a vaccine that was developed in only 6 months during 1957 - it might have been much worse. One million people died world wide. Seems ironic that all these years later, we seem less capable of producing a vaccine.

In 1968 a flu pandemic killed between 1 and 4 million people world wide. 60,000 in Germany. The bodies were stacked in underground tunnels in Berlin because they couldn't bury them fast enough. In the US they estimate around 100,000 died. In the UK an estimated 80,000 people died during the course of the pandemic (over a couple of years).

Those 1957 UK death numbers were based on excess deaths. It will be interesting to see the excess deaths from Covid-19. Given the age distribution of those who died, it's quite possible the numbers will be less than the 1957 flu outbreak. I note that weekly excess death numbers have been down on last year for the past few weeks. Doesn't mean Covid-19 didn't kill loads of people, but because the majority were elderly, many might have died anyway within the year. Having said that, the pandemic is actually over yet!
 
Back
Top