Asymptomatic Carriers Do Not Transmit

BREAKING NEWS FROM WHO (which confirms existing study saying that asymptomatic carriers don’t transmit)

Please folks: covid is not transmitted by asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2. You can relax around people who are healthy, who are not sneezing (even then a sneeze doesn’t mean SARS-CoV-2, it could be an allergic sneeze, a cold sneeze, etc) and you don’t have to veer 6 feet away from someone walking past you.

At WHO’s latest June 8, 2020 press release, Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, says this:

33:33-34:35 “The second part of your question is, what proportion of asymptomatic individuals actually transmit?

So the way that we look at that, is we look at, these individuals need to be followed carefully. Um, over the course of when they’re detected and looking at secondary transmission.

We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.
And much of that is not published in the literature.”



“It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”

34:38-34:51 What we really want to be focussed on is following the symptomatic cases. If we followed all of the symptomatic cases because we know that this is a respiratory pathogen, it passes from an individual through infectious droplets.”

http://terrance.who.int/mediacentre/presser/WHO-AUDIO_Emergencies_Coronavirus_Press_Conference_08JUN2020.mp3

34:45-34:51. “…we know that this is a respiratory pathogen, it passes from an individual through infectious droplets.”

Commenter 1: Asymptomatic I agree. However what Bonnie Henry has said is that the pre-symptomatic and early symptomatic phase is sometimes hard to tell, and it is longer than with a flu.

Commenter 6: @Commenter 1: Bonnie Henry is just a good implementer of the new world order agenda and NOT a reliable source of accurate medical and statistical evidence. Look at Sweden, look at Taiwan, look at Japan, at Belarus. Even that Princess Cruise topped out at .1% death rate and that was amongst a boat with some of the most vulnerable.

Commenter 11: Bonnie Henry works for the vaccine industry

@Commenter 1: I think my first comment might address the issue of pre-symptomatic and early symptomatic perhaps.

“… we know that this is a respiratory pathogen, it passes from an individual through infectious droplets.”

It seems to me then unless you have infectious droplets (not breathing on anyone, you have to actually sneeze on someone), then pre-symptomatic is out of the picture.

Commenter 5: Exactly, someone can cough or sneeze on you before they have symptoms, or with really mild symptoms & infect you. I don’t think they have a clear idea how common or uncommon this is yet. Without accurate testing it’s really hard to know. But Dr. Henry has talked about new research that shows a “high viral load” in some people with little to no symptoms. I think they only discovered this because they’re doing systematic testing on essential workers, like healthcare, and at outbreak sites.

@Commenter 5: These hypotheses about pre-symptomatic / paucisymptomatic transmission is a mystery to me. I don’t have enough information to say anything about the truth of it.

Commenter 5 @Commenter 1: Agreed! They need to do more research! This is still all very new.

Here’s some more transcription of the June 8 press release from Maria von Kerkhove:

Journalist:
31:42 “It’s a question about asymptomatic transmission, if I may. I know that the WHO has previous … that there’s no documented cases of this. We had a story out of Singapore today saying that at least half the new cases they’re seeing have no symptoms. And I’m wondering if it’s possible that this has a bigger role than the WHO initially thought in propagating a pandemic. And what the policy implications of that might be? Thank you.”

Maria von Kerkhove:
32:20-33:32 “One is the number of cases that are being reported, that are being reported as asymptomatic. Um and so, we hear from a number of countries that x number, x percentage of them are reported as not having symptoms. Or that they are in their pre-symptomatic phase which means it’s a few days before they actually develop severe symptoms.

In a number of countries, when we go back, and we discuss with them, one, how are these asymptomatic cases being identified? Many of them are being identified through contact tracing. And so is which we would want to see. You have a known case, you find your contact, they’re already in quarantine hopefully, and some of them are tested. And then you pick up people who may have asymptomatic, or no symptoms, or even mild symptoms.

The other thing we’re finding is that when we actually go back and see how many of them were truly asymptomatic, we find out that many really have mild disease, very mild disease. They’re not, quote unquote “covid” symptoms. Meaning they may not developed fever yet, they may not have had a significant cough, they may not have shortness of breath. But some may have mild disease.

Having said that we do know there may be some people who are truly asymptomatic and PCR positive.”

===

I’m not sure if there’s anything useful there or how to interpret what she said for presymptomatic /paucisymptomatic transmission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znqyleC0eEE&feature=youtu.be

Commenter 2: Sad to see BC Ferries announce you have to wear a mask on the ferries now … beyond ridiculous.

@Commenter 2: The restriction of our freedom to travel is starting. We must not allow this to happen.

https://www.change.org/p/canadians-impeach-trudeau-motion-of-no-confidence

Commenter 1: So I believe that “droplet transmission” is a little more complex than what you are describing. It isn’t only a cough or sneeze. Droplet transmission occurs with talking, singing, chanting, loud talking, as well as contact surfaces where someone has coughed or sneezed or has been singing, and then someone touches those surfaces and touches their face without washing hands etc. This type of transmission happens mostly when in close contact and the transmission increases with time, environment, and with specific viral load that the person has, which is also variable. So if someone is in their first 5-7 days of being infected where they either are pre-symptomatic or have mild symptoms that could feel like allergies, then if you are sitting a foot away from someone and talking closely with them, or singing or shouting there are lots of tiny droplets that can fall all over the place. It is the incubation period of this thing that is so tricky. Generally if you are about 6 feet from people then droplet transmission generally doesn’t occur. If you are outside even less possible. With less time even less possible.

@Commenter 1: Good points. Let’s see what other information is available to address your points.

Regarding: “Droplet transmission occurs with talking, singing, chanting, loud talking, as well as contact surfaces where someone has coughed or sneezed or has been singing”

Let’s have a look at this opinion by Ed Ballard, a professional opera, concert, and choral singer. He writes:

“And, despite the fact that Freiburg has since withdrawn the guidelines and released new advice that singing can be safe, provided social distancing is in place, the old guidelines are still being shared.

TWO misconceptions continue to dominate. First, that singing produces large quantities of aerosol particles, which would soon engulf any enclosed space. Second, that singing projects both droplet and aerosol particles at a far greater rate than other activities.

Singing may, indeed, produce aerosol particles. But, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), Covid-19 is not an airborne virus. “In an analysis of 75,465 Covid-19 cases in China”, one of its scientific briefs states, “airborne transmission was not reported.” “There is no evidence of transmission of the virus as an airborne pathogen,” the WHO’s technical lead on infection prevention and control, Dr Benedetta Allegranzi, has said, despite theories based on lab simulations. Droplet and contact transmission remains the WHO’s official position, as it does of Public Health England.”

So, here Ballad feels that even though singing produces aerosol particles, he doesn’t not equate these aerosol particles to droplets that can pass on transmission.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/5-june/comment/opinion/it-is-time-to-sing-again

@Commenter 1: Continuing from the article:
“The idea that singing leads to a vastly increased projection of either droplets or aerosols has also been called into question.

A recent study by the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, in Munich, looked specifically at the disturbance of air caused by singing and wind instruments.

The study found that it was “only set in motion in the immediate vicinity of the mouth when singing”. The experiments that they carried out showed that “at a distance of around 0.5 m, almost no air movement can be detected, regardless of how loud the sound was and what pitch was sung”.

Studies commissioned by the Vienna Philharmonic and the Bamberg Symphony Orchestra reached the same conclusion for orchestral players. All the studies stress the importance of social distancing. But the singing, or playing, itself was not the problem.

Professional choirs in Europe have been quick to adapt. Opera companies have begun announcing full autumn seasons, and concerts and recitals, behind closed doors, are already taking place, even in London. Clearly, there is already scope for voices to be lifted in song.”

@Commenter 1: From the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics study:

“The low spread of air movement is not surprising, since singing does not expel a large volume of air in jerks like coughing or sneezing [6, 7]. Rather, the art of singing is to move as little air as possible and still produce a beautiful and powerful sound.”



“The fact is that the 1 µm droplets in the aerosol have already completely evaporated after fractions of a second [11, 12]. Droplets with a diameter of 10 μm are completely evaporated after about 1 second (at 50% relative humidity) and very large droplets sink quickly to the ground and evaporate [13, 14, 15].

It is very important to realize that those experiments, in which the ability of viruses to reproduce in aerosols was studied, were carried out in a laboratory condition that is completely unrealistic in practice.[16]

There the rate of evaporation was in equilibrium with the rate of condensation. These conditions may apply in the steam bath, the shower and in some kitchens without proper steam extraction and therefore in some tiny restaurants, but not in our natural environment.”

https://www.unibw.de/lrt7-en/making_music_during_the_sars-cov-2_pandemic.pdf

@Commenter 1: “So if someone is in their first 5-7 days of being infected where they either are pre-symptomatic or have mild symptoms that could feel like allergies, then if you are sitting a foot away from someone and talking closely with them, or singing or shouting there are lots of tiny droplets that can fall all over the place. It is the incubation period of this thing that is so tricky.”

This pre-symptomatic/paucisymptomatic thing is a mystery. I don’t have enough information to add anything useful at this point.

Commenter 3: All part of the control agenda now open knowledge. You can read about it. Not in the msm, probably, though. It will end ONLY when people become aware and take back our power. BTW the WHO is not trusworthy…. understatement. Covid 19 is history. What makse people sick is either regular flu or the effect on oxygen by 5G in people with toxins in their bodies.

Commenter 4: There has been a lot of debate among scientists on what’s going on with covid and what is the best policy. Unfortunately, only one side has been presented in the media. That leads many people to believe that’s the truth.

@Commenter 4: Well, hopefully we can get a more whole picture with we the peoples’ dialogues and sharing.

Commenter 7: Unfortunately we will be seeing the same misinformation when the natural flu/cold season comes in late autumn and everyone will freak out again

Commenter 8: Will they please tell Dr Tam and Dr Bonnie and all the other Drs running the show across Canada! I’m so tired of the lies

Commenter 9: OVER IT … QUIT BEING AFRAID … Even the people that set the panic in motion did NOT social distance …. My GOD … Please get it … 🙏🙏🙏

Commenter 10: And today the W.H.O. walks back an earlier assertion that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare.’ ……………….(seems she was answering a question, and her answer was taken out of context. <;~\ ….

”A top expert at the World Health Organization on Tuesday walked back her earlier assertion that transmission of the coronavirus by people who did not have symptoms was “very rare.”

Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission was rare globally.

“I was just responding to a question; I wasn’t stating a policy of W.H.O. or anything like that,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove said that estimates of transmission from people without symptoms come primarily from models, which may not provide an accurate representation. “That’s a big open question, and that remains an open question,” she said.

Scientists had sharply criticized the W.H.O. for creating confusion on the issue, given the far-ranging public policy implications. Governments around the world have recommended face masks and social-distancing measures because of the risk of asymptomatic transmission.

A range of scientists said Dr. Van Kerkhove’s comments did not reflect the current scientific research.

“All of the best evidence suggests that people without symptoms can and do readily spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19,” scientists at the Harvard Global Health Institute said in a statement on Tuesday. “Communicating preliminary data about key aspects of the coronavirus without much context can have tremendous negative impact on how the public and policymakers respond to the pandemic.”

A widely cited paper published in April suggested that people are most infectious about two days before the onset of symptoms and estimated that 44 percent of new infections were a result of transmission from people who were not yet showing symptoms.

Dr. Van Kerkhove and other W.H.O. experts reiterated the importance of physical distancing, personal hygiene, testing, tracing, quarantine and isolation to control the pandemic.

The debate over transmission erupted a day after the W.H.O. said that cases had reached a new single-day global high: 136,000 on Sunday, with three-quarters in just 10 countries, mostly in the Americas and South Asia. The virus has already sickened more than 7 million people worldwide and killed at least 405,400, according to a New York Times database.

https://www.statnews.com/…/who-comments…/…

@Commenter 10: Sounds like you’re on the cautious side about zero asymptomatic transmission and are wanting people to know that things are heating up in India.

Commenter 10: Hmm, actually no. I was out every day, doing shopping for 8 fearful ones , and foodbank runs for 25 throughout the whole isolation time,, but I carried a mask for times of closer contact, and alcohol for contact situations. I’d be classified as high risk throughout, with precautions. <;~]

@Commenter 10: Oh, I must have misinterpreted your comment when you started including the stuff about India and the looming shortages of hospital beds and the quotes, “This is just the beginning of the coming disaster” and “Only God can save us.”

Commenter 10: Heating up in India? I have no idea. Between faulty testing and false reporting, who knows? One must use their spidey senses. <;~\

Commenter 10: You’ll not that I already shifted the article I quoted, to one that focused on the question at hand. Why not focus on that? <;~l

Commenter 10: ahaha,, sorry,, I shoulda looked at what I dragged and pasted,, I’ll edit that out. <;~D

Commenter 10: There’s reports of a serious spike in Arizona as well, but who knows,, and I don’t meant the W.H.O.!! ….One must take most everything with a grain of salt these daze,,, maybe put the salt with some nice fresh water, and electolyze it… oh waidaminute, I’m doing that already! <;~D

Commenter 10 [Edited out India stuff]: And today the W.H.O. walks back an earlier assertion that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare.’ ……………….(seems she was answering a question, and her answer was taken out of context. <;~\ ….

”A top expert at the World Health Organization on Tuesday walked back her earlier assertion that transmission of the coronavirus by people who did not have symptoms was “very rare.”

Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission was rare globally.

“I was just responding to a question; I wasn’t stating a policy of W.H.O. or anything like that,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove said that estimates of transmission from people without symptoms come primarily from models, which may not provide an accurate representation. “That’s a big open question, and that remains an open question,” she said.

Scientists had sharply criticized the W.H.O. for creating confusion on the issue, given the far-ranging public policy implications. Governments around the world have recommended face masks and social-distancing measures because of the risk of asymptomatic transmission.

A range of scientists said Dr. Van Kerkhove’s comments did not reflect the current scientific research.

“All of the best evidence suggests that people without symptoms can and do readily spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19,” scientists at the Harvard Global Health Institute said in a statement on Tuesday. “Communicating preliminary data about key aspects of the coronavirus without much context can have tremendous negative impact on how the public and policymakers respond to the pandemic.”

A widely cited paper published in April suggested that people are most infectious about two days before the onset of symptoms and estimated that 44 percent of new infections were a result of transmission from people who were not yet showing symptoms.

Dr. Van Kerkhove and other W.H.O. experts reiterated the importance of physical distancing, personal hygiene, testing, tracing, quarantine and isolation to control the pandemic.

The debate over transmission erupted a day after the W.H.O. said that cases had reached a new single-day global high: 136,000 on Sunday, with three-quarters in just 10 countries, mostly in the Americas and South Asia. The virus has already sickened more than 7 million people worldwide and killed at least 405,400, according to a New York Times database.

https://www.statnews.com/…/who-comments…/…

Here’s the study that shows within a sample of 455 asymptomatic covid positive folks, there was zero transmission to others:

“The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.

Conclusion
In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0954611120301669

Commenter 10: ”Other unknowns the WHO experts raised Tuesday include how asymptomatic or presymptomatic people are spreading the virus if they are not coughing — it could be that they still expel infectious droplets through singing, yelling, or even talking — as well as the percentage of all Covid-19 cases that are asymptomatic. One recent paper estimated that 40 to 45% of cases might be asymptomatic, though others have pegged that figure at closer to 20% or even lower.” ……………..–Unknowns–, as they say,, still a lot of questions,, more than answers. ……..The thing that doesn’t add up to me in the articles you quote….. A senator thanks trump for saving her…… from WHAT, if it’s no worse then flu? Why would donald be trumping a cure, if there isn’t an issue? ……and what would or wouldn’t be spread if not by those who are asymptomatic?… and what would any of this matter if it’s all milder than the flu? …..then again,, once you know more closely of local healthy 50y.o.’s who barely survive an attack of gawdknowswhat… then the questions really start flying. <;~l

@Commenter 10: Regarding singing, yelling, even talking, I refer to a recent opinion by Ed Ballard, a professional opera, concert, and choral singer. He refers to a study done by the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, in Munich. He writes:

“And, despite the fact that Freiburg has since withdrawn the guidelines and released new advice that singing can be safe, provided social distancing is in place, the old guidelines are still being shared.

TWO misconceptions continue to dominate. First, that singing produces large quantities of aerosol particles, which would soon engulf any enclosed space. Second, that singing projects both droplet and aerosol particles at a far greater rate than other activities.

Singing may, indeed, produce aerosol particles. But, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), Covid-19 is not an airborne virus. “In an analysis of 75,465 Covid-19 cases in China”, one of its scientific briefs states, “airborne transmission was not reported.” “There is no evidence of transmission of the virus as an airborne pathogen,” the WHO’s technical lead on infection prevention and control, Dr Benedetta Allegranzi, has said, despite theories based on lab simulations. Droplet and contact transmission remains the WHO’s official position, as it does of Public Health England.”



So, here Ballad feels that even though singing produces aerosol particles, he doesn’t not equate these aerosol particles to droplets that can pass on transmission.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/…/it-is-time-to-sing-again

Regarding your question of what Trump saved State Rep Karen Whitsett from, could you direct that question to that thread and then I can address it there?

This thread is concerning the asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Commenter 9 @Commenter 10: It’s because the cure was the medicine easily given and Cheap btw rather them throwing people into medical comas and putting them on ventilators that actually thereby causing people to pass away … Good thing she just had the medicine …

Commenter 9 @Commenter 10: In fact there are doctors that had to ” sneak ” that medicine to their patients because they were told not to use it ( unheard of ) and ALL their patients got well within 24 to 48 hours … How political can you get when you use lives to try to discredit anyone ??? 😳

Commenter 10: Have you ever been sitting in the sun,talking to someone, and see little bits of sputum fly through the air? These are droplets. They are common. They happen all the time….on to your face, or the food in front of you, or the surfaces you touch.. …The only difference between aerosol particles and droplets is their weight, and how fast they drop. …One could say that droplets are just as prone to pass a ‘flu’, than aerosol, in fact they’re much more effective at that in some situations. There’s no point in arguing potato, potatoe,, when minds are made up. Take care.

@Commenter 10: Yes, thanks for pointing that out about small liquid stuff coming out of one’s mouth sometimes. You are referring to them as droplets, and I imagine that others would also.

In terms of differences between aerosol particles and droplets being their weight and how fast they drop, that seems reasonable.

I think that that you might be saying that you’re feeling frustrated that your views are not being accepted and have reached your extend for patience. You’re welcome to continue adding your respectful contributions to any of my threads.

Here’s some results from the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics study. I don’t know if they’re useful.

“The low spread of air movement is not surprising, since singing does not expel a large volume of air in jerks like coughing or sneezing [6, 7]. Rather, the art of singing is to move as little air as possible and still produce a beautiful and powerful sound.”



“The fact is that the 1 µm droplets in the aerosol have already completely evaporated after fractions of a second [11, 12]. Droplets with a diameter of 10 μm are completely evaporated after about 1 second (at 50% relative humidity) and very large droplets sink quickly to the ground and evaporate [13, 14, 15].
It is very important to realize that those experiments, in which the ability of viruses to reproduce in aerosols was studied, were carried out in a laboratory condition that is completely unrealistic in practice.[16]

There the rate of evaporation was in equilibrium with the rate of condensation. These conditions may apply in the steam bath, the shower and in some kitchens without proper steam extraction and therefore in some tiny restaurants, but not in our natural environment.”

https://www.unibw.de/lrt7-en/making_music_during_the_sars-cov-2_pandemic.pdf

Commenter 6: gaslighting

To Mask or Not To Mask?

Responding to a friend’s post:

Healthy people forced to wear a mask, in order to be able to work are being conditioned to accept a vaccine without a question!

me: What! Where is this?
them: here is USA. Some jobs force you to wear a mask

me: I work in the hospital here in Vancouver, Canada (non covid front line). We are asked to wear masks. I don’t like it but I am fine with ensuring the best client care as possible. If I have any symptoms, luckily I can take advantage of sick time and stay home with no financial penalty.

Mandatory wearing of masks outside a healthcare situation is a mystery to me. 

What would be the arguments to force mask wearing given that S-C-2 is not passed by asymptomatic carriers, folks who have some symptoms could stay home or wear a mask themselves, folks who are immune compromised could wear masks if they’re out in the public, …?
them: I have no idea. I go to the gym. The only mask wearers are the poor employees there. Same in restaurants here

Awful! I think that wearing a mask is detriment to one’s health if one doesn’t have a compromised immune system. I hope there will be studies to back that up, although anecdotally, there are some articles:

Man, 26, suffers collapsed lung after jogging 2.5 miles while wearing face mask
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-26-suffers-collapsed-lung-22018788

There’s a couple tragic deaths while wearing masks and running:

Student deaths stir controversy over face mask rule in PE classes
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-26-suffers-collapsed-lung-22018788

Trudeau’s Tyranny

A friend posts a meme “It wasn’t the virus that destroyed the economy. It was YOU complying with the tyranny.”

I respond to this comment:
“Have you looked up the meaning of tyranny… cruel and oppressive government or rule. This is certainly the US, However not even close in Canada. be careful. what you ask for. Tranny is a shitty way of life. Kamile you are a powerful women please don’t manifest something far worse than it is. just for some attention and maybe headlines…… love to you D”

Trudeau eliminates due process in the Parliament:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6987857/coronavirus-canada-parliament-voting/

Trudeau uses Order to Council to bypass any democratic process in gun ban:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131

Trudeau’s financial policies result in Canada having zero gold reserves:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/monthly-official-international-reserves/2020/06.html

Trudeau opens doors for Chinese to buy Canadian gold fields:

http://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/chinese-gold-miner-hopes-to-buy-western-nunavut-gold-mine/

Trudeau says “this is the new normal” until a vaccine is developed.

June 9, 2020: Trudeau emptying out the Canadian coffers and wracking up unimaginable debt. Conservative shadow Minister of Finance MP Pierre Poilievre speaks out for Liberal financial accountability:

What?! Did this already start in 2019? Trudeau was planning this long ago.

Big Brother spying and media censorship using Canadian citizens via the Digital Citizen Contribution Program:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html

Presymptomatic June 9, 2020

 Commenter 1: My understanding is that its because symptoms can take up to two weeks to show up.

If we AGGRESSIVELY contact trace then we dont need to restrict society, but no one is comfortable with that level of intrusion either

Commenter 2: Jesus, this is where you have to be so fucking careful with headlines. ASYMPTOMATIC is not the same as PRESYMPTOMATIC. You are absolutely able (and likely) to catch this virus from someone who is not presenting symptoms at the instant of interaction.

@Commenter 2: In terms of presymptomatic having the ability to transmit the virus, what do you think of this from BC’s deputy provincial health officer Dr Reka Gustafson, June 1, 2020 ?

“There is absolutely no evidence that this disease is airborne, and we know that if it were airborne, then the measures that we took to control COVID-19 would not have worked,” Dr. Reka Gustafson, B.C.’s deputy provincial health officer, told CTV Morning Live Monday.
“We are very confident that the majority of transmission of this virus is through the droplet and contact route.”
Gustafson explained that airborne diseases – like measles or chickenpox – have a different way of transmission.
“The overwhelming majority of (COVID-19) transmissions occur through close, prolonged contact and that is not the pattern of transmission we see through airborne diseases,” she said.
The BC Centre for Disease Control explains airborne transmission happens when small, evaporated droplets float in the air for a long period of time. In the case of droplets, however, they typically only spread a couple of metres before falling to the ground.
The confusion, Gustafson said, is that droplets of the virus can be in theory be aerosolized in a lab, but that’s not how it typically spreads in the real world. “

So if someone is not showing any symptoms 2-14 days before symptoms appear, how does this droplet/contact transmission occur?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/absolutely-no-evidence-that-covid-19-is-airborne-b-c-health-official-says-1.4964156

Commenter 2: This boils down again to the difference between how the academic field and the general public communicate. This scientist is doing a particularly poor job of it. There is a scientific definition of the word “airborne” that differs slightly from what your intuition might suggest, and it has mostly to do with the size of the particles.

Every time you are speaking, breathing, and especially singing, you are expelling droplets of bodily fluids into the air, and they are going to fall in a mist all around you. If you’re speaking closely to someone, at a microscopic level you are basically spitting in their face the entire time, and you are absolutely shedding viral load in the presymptomatic phase of this infection. Those droplets could enter through direct contact with the eye, or perhaps just fall onto their hand, or even their clothing, and work their way back up to a mucous membrane and then into the system.

Commenter 2: Think of it like if every time someone took a breath, they expelled a cloud of glitter instead of air. Transmission occurs every time a piece of that glitter makes it to your eye, your nose, your mouth, or your more sensitive bits, before the timer runs out. And that timer is anywhere from seven minutes to seventeen days, depending on the environment.

@Commenter 2: In this opinion by Ed Ballard, a professional opera, concert, and choral singer. He writes:
“And, despite the fact that Freiburg has since withdrawn the guidelines and released new advice that singing can be safe, provided social distancing is in place, the old guidelines are still being shared.
TWO misconceptions continue to dominate. First, that singing produces large quantities of aerosol particles, which would soon engulf any enclosed space. Second, that singing projects both droplet and aerosol particles at a far greater rate than other activities.
Singing may, indeed, produce aerosol particles. But, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), Covid-19 is not an airborne virus. “In an analysis of 75,465 Covid-19 cases in China”, one of its scientific briefs states, “airborne transmission was not reported.” “There is no evidence of transmission of the virus as an airborne pathogen,” the WHO’s technical lead on infection prevention and control, Dr Benedetta Allegranzi, has said, despite theories based on lab simulations. Droplet and contact transmission remains the WHO’s official position, as it does of Public Health England.”—So, here Ballad feels that even though singing produces aerosol particles, he doesn’t not equate these aerosol particles to droplets that can pass on transmission.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/5-june/comment/opinion/it-is-time-to-sing-again

@Commenter 2: Continuing from the article:“The idea that singing leads to a vastly increased projection of either droplets or aerosols has also been called into question.
A recent study by the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, in Munich, looked specifically at the disturbance of air caused by singing and wind instruments.
The study found that it was “only set in motion in the immediate vicinity of the mouth when singing”. The experiments that they carried out showed that “at a distance of around 0.5 m, almost no air movement can be detected, regardless of how loud the sound was and what pitch was sung”.
Studies commissioned by the Vienna Philharmonic and the Bamberg Symphony Orchestra reached the same conclusion for orchestral players. All the studies stress the importance of social distancing. But the singing, or playing, itself was not the problem.
Professional choirs in Europe have been quick to adapt. Opera companies have begun announcing full autumn seasons, and concerts and recitals, behind closed doors, are already taking place, even in London. Clearly, there is already scope for voices to be lifted in song.”

@Commenter 2: “The low spread of air movement is not surprising, since singing does not expel a large volume of air in jerks like coughing or sneezing [6, 7]. Rather, the art of singing is to move as little air as possible and still produce a beautiful and powerful sound.”

“The fact is that the 1 µm droplets in the aerosol have already completely evaporated after fractions of a second [11, 12]. Droplets with a diameter of 10 μm are completely evaporated after about 1 second (at 50% relative humidity) and very large droplets sink quickly to the ground and evaporate [13, 14, 15].
It is very important to realize that those experiments, in which the ability of viruses to reproduce in aerosols was studied, were carried out in a laboratory condition that is completely unrealistic in practice.[16]
There the rate of evaporation was in equilibrium with the rate of condensation. These conditions may apply in the steam bath, the shower and in some kitchens without proper steam extraction and therefore in some tiny restaurants, but not in our natural environment.”
https://www.unibw.de/lrt7-en/making_music_during_the_sars-cov-2_pandemic.pdf

@Commenter 2: You assert that “you are absolutely shedding viral load in the presymptomatic phase of this infection.”
I wonder if there are any studies backing that up? Or any sources you care to share with me regarding that?

Commenter 2: Statistical data that is modelled from China is unfortunately less than the gold standard right now. As for the fluid dynamics study I’m highly skeptical since the introduction of the paper is principally an economic argument, which immediately suggests bias. I’m reading the rest of it now.

Commenter 2: This point hasn’t really been widely argued since the first report, but a quick google search produced one statistically relevant study that seems to be currently referenced:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2008457

I’m sure there are others. Have you looked through some of the pre-print servers?

@Commenter 2: I had a brief look at the study you just linked. Some observations I would make:

1. It looks at an older population at a skilled nursing facility. How can we rule out co-morbidities and weaker immune system/vitamin D levels?

2. When I look at their statement and their references for their statement:”A key factor in the transmissibility of Covid-19 is the high level of SARS-CoV-2 shedding in the upper respiratory tract,1 even among presymptomatic patients, which distinguishes it from SARS-CoV-1, where replication occurs mainly in the lower respiratory tract.2 Viral loads with SARS-CoV-1, which are associated with symptom onset, peak a median of 5 days later than viral loads with SARS-CoV-2, which makes symptom-based detection of infection more effective in the case of SARS CoV-1.3″ – I just don’t see any hard scientific studies proving what they just said.

Reference 1 is preprint, so not good science yet.
Reference 2 is back in 2004 for SARS1.
Reference 3 is an observational cohort study in 2 hospitals of a small sample size of 30 patients.
Reference 5 was again in a skilled nursing facility (related to the same one as study 1?) and what I interpret as having a non-conclusion ending (“most likely contributed to…”). “Most likely” is not very conclusive:
“Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility.”

And given WHO’s June 8 initial press release that there’s no asymptomatic transmission, then I might even say that Reference 5 (“most likely contributed to transmission”) would be contrary to BC Chief Medical Health Officer and the asymptomatic study with 455 folks.

I haven’t had time to thoroughly critique the study you just linked, but my sense is that if it has any applicability, it is only for older populations in skilled nursing facilities.

Commenter 3: Asymptomatic isn’t the same as the incubating period before symptoms happen. If you are infected, and not showing symptoms YET, because it can take up to 2 weeks, you can spread the heck out of the virus.

While social distancing sucks for many reasons, I’m happy we did that here – because the numbers show in places that didn’t, just how well that went. People sick and dying in droves.

Commenter 3B: Apparently WHO is not the best at communicating information well. Here is a quote from a science person regarding this article. Please continue wearing your mask or whatever other measures that our health officers are encouraging us to do so that we don’t have another outbreak:

I’m about to make a lot of people sad, and for that I apologize, but the science communicator in me feels compelled to address this.

You might be seeing a headline today saying that asymptomatic people aren’t spreading COVID.

Unfortunately, WHO is absolutely terrible at clear science communication. There is an important difference between asymptomatic and PREsymptomatic.

The very tiny, vanishingly-small, minuscule percentage of people who get COVID and never ever show symptoms at any point are the ones who are not driving the spread of COVID. This is very, very few people. Which is why they aren’t the ones “driving” the spread.

The very LARGE MAJORITY of people who incubate COVID for 2-14 days before showing symptoms (and possibly make contact with others during the time when they have no symptoms and don’t yet know they are sick) are VERY MUCH driving the spread of COVID. This is the case for most people who test positive; many don’t have symptoms at first, possibly not even at the point of testing, because COVID has a very long incubation period. But most do go on to have symptoms at SOME point. And even before they are symptomatic, when a layperson might describe them as “asymptomatic,” they are still very much contagious, and still very much responsible for most of the spread, just as we previously understood.

It’s hard to watch people get their hopes up once you understand the actual info that WHO clearly failed to communicate, and scary to think that people might make decisions based on an erroneous understanding of the scientific reality.

Stay safe. Wear your mask. Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. And keep staying home as much as you can. I’m sorry.

@Commenter 3B: Here’s a recent study that shows 455 folks exposed to an asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier did not get it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954611120301669

Commenter 3B: Asymptomatic isn’t pre-symptomatic. The number of asymptomatic folks is very small. So of course transmissions will be minimal. Based on numbers alone.

Commenter 4: That study follows just one potential asymptomatic carrier, which is hardly conclusive. A study of one individual like this is not typically used to draw a general conclusion.

Even the conclusion paragraph on the summary page steers clear of declaring all asymptomatic carriers won’t transmit the disease:

“In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.”

@Commenter 3B: You made a statement above that a very large majority of people who incubate SARS-CoV-2 for 2-14 days before showing symptoms … are very much driving the spread of covid.

What do you think of this from BC’s deputy provincial health officer Dr Reka Gustafson, June 1, 2020 ?



“There is absolutely no evidence that this disease is airborne, and we know that if it were airborne, then the measures that we took to control COVID-19 would not have worked,” Dr. Reka Gustafson, B.C.’s deputy provincial health officer, told CTV Morning Live Monday.

“We are very confident that the majority of transmission of this virus is through the droplet and contact route.”

Gustafson explained that airborne diseases – like measles or chickenpox – have a different way of transmission.

“The overwhelming majority of (COVID-19) transmissions occur through close, prolonged contact and that is not the pattern of transmission we see through airborne diseases,” she said.

The BC Centre for Disease Control explains airborne transmission happens when small, evaporated droplets float in the air for a long period of time. In the case of droplets, however, they typically only spread a couple of metres before falling to the ground.

The confusion, Gustafson said, is that droplets of the virus can be in theory be aerosolized in a lab, but that’s not how it typically spreads in the real world. “



So if someone is not showing any symptoms 2-14 days before symptoms appear, how does this droplet/contact transmission occur?

@Commenter 4: Thanks for your input. You’re saying that just testing what happens with one asymptomatic carrier is not indicative enough and that the conclusion is not conclusive.

What do you think when you also consider what Dr. Reka Gustafson, B.C.’s deputy provincial health officer said on June 1, 2020?



“There is absolutely no evidence that this disease is airborne, and we know that if it were airborne, then the measures that we took to control COVID-19 would not have worked,” Dr. Reka Gustafson, B.C.’s deputy provincial health officer, told CTV Morning Live Monday.

“We are very confident that the majority of transmission of this virus is through the droplet and contact route.”

Gustafson explained that airborne diseases – like measles or chickenpox – have a different way of transmission.

“The overwhelming majority of (COVID-19) transmissions occur through close, prolonged contact and that is not the pattern of transmission we see through airborne diseases,” she said.

The BC Centre for Disease Control explains airborne transmission happens when small, evaporated droplets float in the air for a long period of time. In the case of droplets, however, they typically only spread a couple of metres before falling to the ground.

The confusion, Gustafson said, is that droplets of the virus can be in theory be aerosolized in a lab, but that’s not how it typically spreads in the real world. “

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Commenter 4: We’re talking about asymptomatic transmission, not airborne transmission. I don’t see the connection.

Commenter 3B: I remember reading this article. What I took away from it was that to prevent droplet spread, that a mask is still useful.

For example, I have allergies. So I’m a bit of a sneezy person to begin with. If I did get it, even before I knew it, I’m definitely spraying that around without a mask. And our guidelines kept people out of close quarters.

Diseases are very interesting. Spread depends on so many factors. We’re still learning about this one. Airborn or not is one factor. They’re still nailing down what frequency, or how long of contact for example affects transmission rates. It’s why they say you can go for a walk outside without your mask and if you’re just passing people walking, even if they’re infected, you very likely won’t get it. Compared to longer exposure or in closer quarters.

I’m excited (in a science way) to see exactly what the parameters are tbh, so that we can have firmer ‘rules’ or guidelines as to how to navigate the disease effectively with as much freedom and enjoyment of life as possible if you know what I mean.

The cool thing about scientists, is that they are willing to change their opinion as new data rolls in. New guidelines will emerge that are better and better as time goes on.

@Commenter 3B: Sorry to hear about the allergies. No fun ;-(

Sneezing, I’m pretty sure, produces droplets. I agree with you that just passing people walking is an unvery likely way of transmission. It needs to be droplet contact in close quarters.

The longer exposure is still unclear in my mind. I wonder if a longer time in the vicinity of an active symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 person may just increase the probability of getting droplet contact. But droplet contact seems to be essential.

@Commenter 4: Correct you are that transmission is not airborne.

I wanted to point out that BC’s medical health director Dr Reka Gustafson said:

“We are very confident that the majority of transmission of this virus is through the droplet and contact route.”

“The overwhelming majority of (COVID-19) transmissions occur through close, prolonged contact and that is not the pattern of transmission we see through airborne diseases,”

Pray for Trump

On June 7, 2020, 10:09am, I posted in the Canadian/American Freedom Fighters

Please pray for President Trump and his family and trusted allies, and to invoke spiritual guidance and protection so that they can continue the fight for freedom, liberty, individual choice, health, peace, and happiness.

Bad Science by Folks Who Don’t Want Hydroxychloroquine Shown to be Effective

Bad science. The forces that don’t want hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) shown as effective for c…..19 are funding fake studies that show that HCQ is ineffective.

Thanks to Todd Caldecott for the initial post.

From the article below:
“In 25 May media briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cited the Lancet results in announcing a “temporary pause” in Solidarity’s hydroxychloroquine arm.
Regulators in France and the United Kingdom also instructed investigators, including White’s team, to halt enrollment in trials of the malaria drug. And Sanofi, which manufactures the branded hydroxychloroquine drug Plaquenil, said it would temporarily stop recruiting patients to its two clinical trials of the drug.”

Please do your research before you believe anything.

Here’s the original “study”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311806https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6.pdf

Here’s the Lancet’s expression of concern of the study:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31290-3/fulltext

Commenter 1: Thought FB was removing posting on C19 unless it was from medical professionals. So done!

@Commenter 1: I think of this as sharing science and developments of.

Here’s Dr Didier Raoult’s response to the revealing of the bad science. Dr Raoult did a proper study showing the benefit of HCQ. The Youtube video is in French so try using the subtitles set to auto-generate for your language of choice.
If anyone can translate into English and leave the transcription here, then it would be greatly appreciated.

Here’s Dr Raoult’s study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

Commenter 2: Thank you H 👍

Commenter 3: Wow. It sounds like you’ve listened to a few of those friendly ‘doctor’ videos. Perhaps try the CBC report on the same. It seems a better example of balanced reporting….
 
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1746238019636

@Commenter 3: Thanks for that link. McDonald’s study says that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for the prevention of c…..19. However, as she states in 00:41 of the cbc video.

“From here, we still don’t know if we can give the medication as treatment, either in the community or in the hospital. And those are the questions that need to be answered.”

Given the imminent retraction of the fake science study, WHO has resumed a study looking into whether hydroxychloroquine is effective as a treatment.

But I do believe that Dr Raoult’s study above does show a positive benefit of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

@Commenter 3: WHO resumes hydroxychloroquine study:

https://time.com/5847664/who-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19/

@Commenter 3: I believe that this is the study that the CBC interviewed doctor, Dr Emily McDonald was referring to. 719 (out of 821) patients had high-risk exposures without eye shields and surgical masks or respirators. 113 persons had development of symptomatic illness.

No arrhythmias or deaths occurred.

In this study, with 0 deaths, the mortality rate was 0.000%

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

I haven’t had time to fact check these quotes, but for now, here’s a potential quote from a former New England Journal of Medicine editor, Dr Marcia Angell, back late 2009 :

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”

https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

June 4, 2020: Thanks to SL for posting.

In the first big research scandal of the COVID-19 era, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) today retracted two high-profile papers after a company declined to make the underlying data for both available for an independent audit, following questions being raised about the research. The Lancet paper, which claimed an antimalarial drug touted by President Donald Trump for treatment of COVID-19 could cause serious harm without helping patients, had had a global impact, halting trials of one of the drugs by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.

Three authors on the Lancet paper requested the retraction, after initiating an independent review of the raw hospital patient data summarized and provided by Surgisphere, a small Chicago-based company operated by Sapan Desai, the fourth author of the study. Desai had previously said he and his co-authors—cardiac surgeon Mandeep Mehra of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Frank Ruschitzka of University Hospital Zürich, and Amit Patel, an adjunct faculty member at the University of Utah—were getting such an audit of the data, but the agreement apparently fell apart.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” making the outside audit of the data impossible, the three co-authors wrote in the retraction statement. “Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

The NEJM study that was retracted had concluded, based on Surgisphere-provided data from hospitals around the world, that taking certain blood pressure drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, didn’t appear to increase the risk of death among COVID-19 patients, as some researchers had suggested.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions

Commenter 4: In this day of media being very bad at science reporting, I wouldn’t be confident about anything until there is a real scientific consensus. There was a retraction. That’s all we know. There’s a reason the WHO is still investigating.

@Commenter 4: Here’s Dr Raoult’s study which shows the benefit of HCQ as treatment for c…..19. It had a rebuttal, but Dr Raoult issued a counter rebuttal.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

Commenter 5: @Commenter 4 I would agree with you.

@Commenter 5: So it’s important to research the scientific literature and not rely on untrustworthy main stream media sources.

Can search via
www.scholar.google.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Commenter 4: There’s a reason big bodies like the WHO wait for consensus. Even with a valid, peer reviewed paper, there’s p-hacking for results which is common, and an astonishing number of papers can’t be replicated. One positive study for a drug shows that it’s worth researching more, not that it’s the answer.