NFR Do Yourself a Favor.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Griswald

a.k.a. Griswald
Change my mind on what? You are presenting a computer model using assumptions as the scientific fact that 75% of all cases are spread from asymptomatic carriers.

Your quoted study has nothing to do with the 2,003,618 except that it says, if we take their assumptions then we can assume that 1,502,716 of the cases were the result of spread of asymptomatic carriers. There is no study that supports the 1,502,716 of the cases were actually spread by asymptomatic carriers.

I don't care if you go out to the river in a hazmat suit if it makes you feel better and safer but that doesn't mean you get to tell everyone else they have to as well because of mathematical model that makes it conclusions based on the arbitrary assumptions of a computer geek in a statistical modeling computer lab.

And if you are going to make a case for something, try using actual studies rather than statistical modeling programs, one Neil Ferguson in the world is enough.
Science is not on your side. So what if science does not have this "all dialed in" and absolutely jives with your statistical model. What skin off of your nose is it if it is wrong? So we all have to wear a mask for a few months, have you walked thru an ICU ward lately?
Covid knows no boundaries, it does not care if you are "right" or "wrong"
 
Last edited:

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Change my mind on what? You are presenting a computer model using assumptions as the scientific fact that 75% of all cases are spread from asymptomatic carriers.

Your quoted study has nothing to do with the 2,003,618 except that it says, if we take their assumptions then we can assume that 1,502,716 of the cases were the result of spread of asymptomatic carriers. There is no study that supports the 1,502,716 of the cases were actually spread by asymptomatic carriers.

I don't care if you go out to the river in a hazmat suit if it makes you feel better and safer but that doesn't mean you get to tell everyone else they have to as well because of mathematical model that makes it conclusions based on the arbitrary assumptions of a computer geek in a statistical modeling computer lab.

And if you are going to make a case for something, try using actual studies rather than statistical modeling programs, one Neil Ferguson in the world is enough.

Sorry jccady, perhaps you should read more carefully. I have never told anyone they have to wear a mask, I have asked folks for their own safety, and the safety of their families and their communities to wear masks, and in your case stated I "hope" you do.

Second, and more importantly, I think you misunderstand/misread the results of the paper/model; it is NOT that 75% of all cases are from asymptomatic carriers, it is "that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms." ie, they are not as infections as symptomatic individuals. That then results in an estimate that "persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission." (my bolding).

I suggest if in future you disagree something, you at least take the care to make sure you understand it before you attempt to disparage it.

My point with stating that > 2m cases (not a study) have been identified since January 1 is that this is raging so please take care, but since you raised it, the study I sited would suggest roughly 500,000 were due to asymptomatic transmission.

Just because you do not like statistical modeling (I also am not the biggest fan, needs to be corroborated), that does not make it invalid. In fact, the results of the above modeling fit with other research. If you want me to fill up space, well here's just a few (I would be happy to supply you with more, as I said, the evidence is piling up):

Buitrago-Garcia D, Egli-Gany D, Counotte MJ, et al. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med2020;17:e1003346.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346 pmid:32960881
PubMed

Yanes-Lane M, Winters N, Fregonese F, et alProportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2020;15:e0241536.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241536 pmid:33141862 PubMed

Kronbichler A, Kresse D, Yoon S, et al. Asymptomatic patients as a source of COVID-19 infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J of Inf Dis. 2020; 98: 180-186 PubMed

We are still in the early days, an incredible amount has been learned in the 1 year that this virus/disease has been around, but there is still great deal to learn.

As always, Cheers
 
Last edited:

long_rod_silvers

WFF Supporter
WWIII will be fought by a bunch of computer geeks and media. The war won't be for land or resources. It will be to control what you think. It's already being fought and the casualties are mounting. The mass brainwashing is underway. Confidence in the news still strong? Confidence in the experts still strong? It's already over. News flash, we lost.
Remember how you used to watch the news and they'd tell you what happened, and you got decide what to think about it? Now they tell you what to think about it, and you get to decide if it actually happened...
 

jccady

New Member
Sorry jccady, perhaps you should read more carefully. I have never told anyone they have to wear a mask, I have asked folks for their own safety, and the safety of their families and their communities to wear masks, and in your case stated I "hope" you do.

Second, and more importantly, I think you misunderstand/misread the results of the paper/model; it is NOT that 75% of all cases are from asymptomatic carriers, it is "that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms." ie, they are not as infections as symptomatic individuals. That then results in an estimate that "persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission." (my bolding).

I suggest if in future you disagree something, you at least take the care to make sure you understand it before you attempt to disparage it.

My point with stating that > 2m cases (not a study) have been identified since January 1 is that this is raging so please take care, but since you raised it, the study I sited would suggest roughly 500,000 were due to asymptomatic transmission.

Just because you do not like statistical modeling (I also am not the biggest fan, needs to be corroborated), that does not make it invalid. In fact, the results of the above modeling fit with other research. If you want me to fill up space, well here's just a few (I would be happy to supply you with more, as I said, the evidence is piling up):

Buitrago-Garcia D, Egli-Gany D, Counotte MJ, et al. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med2020;17:e1003346.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346 pmid:32960881
PubMed

Yanes-Lane M, Winters N, Fregonese F, et alProportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2020;15:e0241536.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241536 pmid:33141862 PubMed

Kronbichler A, Kresse D, Yoon S, et al. Asymptomatic patients as a source of COVID-19 infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J of Inf Dis. 2020; 98: 180-186 PubMed

We are still in the early days, an incredible amount has been learned in the 1 year that this virus/disease has been around, but there is still great deal to learn.

As always, Cheers
I wasn't trying to recreate the modeling in this thread, I am pointing out that fact that you are promoting that the "evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger" by using a mathematical model as your evidence, this is not scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission.
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
I wasn't trying to recreate the modeling in this thread, I am pointing out that fact that you are promoting that the "evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger" by using a mathematical model as your evidence, this is not scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission.
You misstated the results of the study, giving people bad information, own it.

I stand by my statement.

Cheers
 

Sportsman

Active Member
Hard to believe people are still arguing this. Nitpicking the obvious, scientists are trying to save lives. The deniers need to catch Covid to be convinced. I don't want anyone to die from being stupid, but getting really sick will stop them from texting.
 

jccady

New Member
You need to own the fact that the "study" you quoted is not a scientific study of asymptomatic transmission but a mathematical model of how transmission would occur IF the assumptions made in the study were true.

This is not scientific evidence support "evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger".
 

Sportsman

Active Member
You need to own the fact that the "study" you quoted is not a scientific study of asymptomatic transmission but a mathematical model of how transmission would occur IF the assumptions made in the study were true.

This is not scientific evidence support "evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger".
Give it a rest! Your IQ test came back: it's inconclusive, somewhere between single digits and negative.
 

jwg

Active Member
So, mathematical modeling is not scientific? All scientific studies have built in assumptions.

I am done with you on this.

Cheers
I admired your efforts.
But, happiness is not arguing with fools, according to an old adage, or trolls in modern times.

My ignore list is doing great and has been further refined.

J
 

MGTom

Living at the place of many waters
WFF Supporter
On another positive note treatments seem to be effective. Two of my son's wife's family, one at the pen and one at hanford, tested positive just before christmas and so far they seem to be recovering well. We were actually contemplating getting together before christmas, but they are not in our regular little circle. Never did have to choose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top