OK, I guess I am not done. I don't know if it's intentional or you are just semi-literate, but in multiple instances you have mischaracterized what has been written:Mathematical modeling is not a medical study.
Quibble with that study all you want. However, this review and meta-analysis identified multiple studies that showed asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. They also note studies that show while less transmission occurs (about three-fold decrease) from asymptomatic individuals, it does occur. Presymptomatic individuals also transmit COVID at a lesser rate (about 2/3 as much) than symptomatic individuals.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".
You OP was "As the studies pile up, the evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger." and you attached this study suggesting that this study is in fact evidence for asymptomatic transmission.OK, I guess I am not done. I don't know if it's intentional or you are just semi-literate, but in multiple instances you have mischaracterized what has been written:
1. Where did I say mathematical modeling or the JAMA paper was a medical study (you seem to keep moving the goalpost - first it was "not scientific" now it is "not a medical study") - I never even stated the paper was "a science paper" (my statement was "As the studies pile up..."), though it is, and yes, mathematical modeling can be medical science, what do you think epidemiology is based on?
"Sir Ronald Ross, who received the Nobel prize in 1902 for elucidating the life cycle of the malaria parasite, used mathematical modeling to investigate the effectiveness of various intervention strategies for malaria." (my bolding)
I can supply you with many more if you need.
2. You implied the because the because the JAMA paper did not undergo IRB review, it was somehow illegitimate - you either don't know what an IRB is or what its functions are, or you deliberately misled - the paper did not require IRB approval because it did not enroll any human subjects - it did undergo peer review
3. You misstated the results, either deliberately or because you you didn't understand what you read. You stated the JAMA paper concluded that "75% of all cases are spread from asymptomatic carriers." - that is not at all what it concluded, it concluded 24% - you were only off by a factor of 3 - you never corrected or owned up to you error, which was very misleading on a very important topic.
As stated previously, if you are seriously going to try and debate the validity of something, the least you can do is take the care to make sure you understand it before you attempt to disparage it.
Apology accepted, and now I am done with you.
Jccady,You OP was "As the studies pile up, the evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger." and you attached this study suggesting that this study is in fact evidence for asymptomatic transmission.
1) I'm not here seeking your validation, I could care less about your assessment of anyone's credibility.Jccady,
As the one in this argument who does not accept the prevailing scientific opinion on COVID transmission, the onus is on you to provide a preponderance of evidence that overturns that opinion. Thus far, you have offered misinterpretations of a couple of reports and an unwillingness to explore the evidence further, or to accept the considered opinion of the scientific/medical/public health community. Joining our forum as a troll even further reduces your credibility. Why not take a break and make some posts about fly fishing.
The personal attacks can be entertaining, but they are a violation of what each one of us agreed to when joining this forum. Attack the argument, not the person. If we can't stick to that, we're not supposed to be here.The best part of this whole thread (and others like it) is the personal attacks against others who don't agree with ones point of view. Gotta love it
I agree and have edited my answer earlier. Apologies.The personal attacks can be entertaining, but they are a violation of what each one of us agreed to when joining this forum. Attack the argument, not the person. If we can't stick to that, we're not supposed to be here.
I can say that your argument is that of a dunderhead, but I can't say that you are a dunderhead.
This in todays Washington Post:Lots of data to the effect that other airborne respiratory infections are now way down as a result of so many people wearing masks. Silver lining...