31–40 of 236 posts
Is that really a problem if asymptomatic cases are less infectious and do not cause much issues to the carrier? (This is a question, not a statement)
It's just funny that you have to mention this is a question even if a question mark exists. It shows how much toxic people got instead of understanding others.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/self-testi...
Is that really a problem if asymptomatic cases are less infectious and do not cause much issues to the carrier? (This is a question, not a statement)
It depends on the purpose of the test.
For example, a trillion dollar question is still long covid. Very significant numbers of people are on disability right now. About 10% of Americans have some form of long covid, and >1% are unable to work due to long covid (or >2% of the workforce). Long covid comes up even with mild and asymptomatic cases, and seems to have a strong autoimmune component. If you're trying to understand where those sorts of symptoms came from, it's good to know whether or not you had covid before they started.
Given that we don't understand what's going on here medically at all, it's not immediately useful, but it may be useful to know as treatments come up. A big part of the reason why I test is simply to know.
There are many other potential purposes one might have for testing too. For example, studies might want to track prevalence of covid in populations. It's good to know, methodologically, what they're tracking.
Is that really a problem if asymptomatic cases are less infectious and do not cause much issues to the carrier? (This is a question, not a statement)
The point of the test is to tell the carrier if they should isolate to slow the spread - if you're asymptomatic today, take the test, get a negative, go to work for the week, it's as if you didn't do the test. It's not to begin treatment. So it is a pretty big problem!
Why, if asymptomatic cases are unlikely to infect others, is a false negative for asymptomatic cases a problem? Doesn't this all boil down to "if you feel sick, stay home, if you don't, don't worry about it?"
My pet theory is the vaccine is good at creating populations that have asymptomatic and subclinical experiences with the disease and that probably contributes to spread because otherwise those people would've stayed home if they were sicker. This seems to confirm that it even does this to the rapid tests.
Is that really a problem if asymptomatic cases are less infectious and do not cause much issues to the carrier? (This is a question, not a statement)
> (This is a question, not a statement) It's just funny that you have to mention this is a question even if a question mark exists. It shows how much toxic people got instead of understanding others.
- It's [X]
- Have you considered it might be [X]?
- Is it possible it might be [X]?
- ...
The goal is to not appear overly assertive / confident / arrogant. Once that happens, people start to read subtexts into questions, and all of a sudden, you need disclaimers.
I like direct communications, so I find this obnoxious, but I don't think it's ill-willed or toxic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the test is to tell the carrier if they should isolate to slow the spread - if you're asymptomatic today, take the test, get a negative, go to work for the week, it's as if you didn't do the test. It's not to begin treatment. So it is a pretty big problem!
This doesn't answer the question. Why, if asymptomatic cases are unlikely to infect others, is a false negative for asymptomatic cases a problem? Doesn't this all boil down to "if you feel sick, stay home, if you don't, don't worry about it?"
Defense-in-depth gives a broad range of tactics, and the goal is to combine enough of them to limit risks.
Duh, they only detect levels of viral load sufficient to make a person infectious, around 1e6 RNA copies per cc of fluid. And viral load tends to peak somewhere in the 1e10 to 1e14 range, people at 1e6 really have to work at coughing directly on to growth plates to create a sample. Back in the early days of Covid-19 people didn't typically begin displaying symptoms visible without an x-ray until they'd nearly reach t…
Duh, they only detect levels of viral load sufficient to make a person infectious, around 1e6 RNA copies per cc of fluid. And viral load tends to peak somewhere in the 1e10 to 1e14 range, people at 1e6 really have to work at coughing directly on to growth plates to create a sample. Back in the early days of Covid-19 people didn't typically begin displaying symptoms visible without an x-ray until they'd nearly reach t…
Then how do you explain this:
> However, repeating the test 3 times, 48 hours apart, led to detection of infections in 75% of asymptomatic participants.