# Peter Hitchens Blog



## Amity Island (Jul 13, 2020)

Peter Hitchens latest blog on Covid19.

Talking of wavers as a way stop lockdown and letting people decide for themselves about the risks they wish take. Which I suppose is a bit like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, dangerous sports hobbies etc which has personal risks and risks to those around you.






						PETER HITCHENS: Forget face masks and fear - let's relax and accept the risk - Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog
					

PETER HITCHENS: Forget face masks and fear - let's relax and accept the risk



					hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 14, 2020)

Nothing more than the mad ramblings of a scientifically ignorant moron. Dangerous, too, though even the knuckle dragging readers of the Mail might see it for what it is.


----------



## trophywench (Jul 14, 2020)

I couldn't be arsed to read very far.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jul 14, 2020)

I also dislike intensely this idea that we have to "learn to live with the virus" since it usually sounds like we should pretend it's gone away. I'm fine with accepting that we have to live with the virus; I'd just like to live with a whole lot less of it than we have currently (in England), if possible a vanishingly small amount of it.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 14, 2020)

trophywench said:


> I couldn't be arsed to read very far.


----------



## Becka (Jul 14, 2020)

I have no interest in reading it either, but the biggest effect from "taking risks" rather than following guidance is how our actions impact other people.  Where it is like smoking it is like bans on enclosed spaces to prevent passive smoking, where it is like drinking it is like drink driving, etc.

So I can only assume from Amity Island's précis that Hitchens wants to allowing people to sign a waiver pre-admitting culpability for manslaughter, should they catch the virus where they have taken no measures to prevent them transmitting it.  Fair enough.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 15, 2020)

Becka said:


> I have no interest in reading it either, but the biggest effect from "taking risks" rather than following guidance is how our actions impact other people.  Where it is like smoking it is like bans on enclosed spaces to prevent passive smoking, where it is like drinking it is like drink driving, etc.
> 
> So I can only assume from Amity Island's précis that Hitchens wants to allowing people to sign a waiver pre-admitting culpability for manslaughter, should they catch the virus where they have taken no measures to prevent them transmitting it.  Fair enough.


Becka,

Yes Hitchens does like to get on his soap box! and it's likely that many share his views too. I posted it as it just shows everyone has differing opinions on the matter. Nobody disagrees that it is an awful thing to catch and that the most vulnerable and those showing symptoms should do the responsible thing and self isolate.

However, Hitchens makes no mention of "admitting culpability for manslaughter". Using the phrase "admitting culpability for manslaughter" assumes anyone can pass it on and anyone can catch it.

I mentioned this some time ago on here and I've not seen anything recently to suggest this is still not the case, it may well change, but lockdown was enacted after the virus was reclassified:

"As far as I understand, you can't pass it on if you don't have it, you can't pass it on if you have had it and have immunity, you can't pass it on to someone who is in isolation, you can't pass it on if you are yourself in isolation, you can't pass it on to someone who has it, you can't pass it on to someone who has already had it and has immunity, you can't catch it from someone who doesn't have it, you can't catch it from someone who is in isolation".









						Is this correct? Sars cov 2. (Covid19)
					

Hi Everyone,  I constantly hear on the news,  "anyone can pass it (Sars Cov 2) on".  As a statement of fact is it factually correct?  As far as I understand, you can't pass it on if you don't have it, you can't pass it on if you have had it and have immunity, you can't pass it on to someone who...




					forum.diabetes.org.uk
				




Lets refer to some recent *official facts (not my opinion)* to see if it is actually the case that anyone can pass it on and can catch it, bearing in mind, anyone with covid19 symptoms (the most likely spreaders) should be isolating at home for 2 weeks minimising any risk for spread.

1. Public health declared this week: Regarding picking up the virus from objects and packaging. Scientific evidence shows that virus can remain on surface for weeks, *but *the same scientific studies also state that the virus is in such tiny amounts it can only be theoretically to be transmitted leaving less than 0.1% chance of catching it.









						How long can the virus that causes COVID-19 live on surfaces?
					

Carolyn Machamer, a cell biologist who specializes in coronaviruses, discusses the latest research on the virus that causes COVID-19




					hub.jhu.edu
				




Public Health England has advised that *"it is very unlikely COVID-19 can be transmitted through food or food packaging, so shoppers can remain confident buying British fruit and veg"*.








						Coronavirus: 73 contract COVID-19 after outbreak on Herefordshire farm
					

Workers at AS Green & Co have been asked to isolate on the farm and are being treated as "one extended bubble".




					news.sky.com
				




2. WHO declared on 9th June
Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) technical lead for COVID-19, said at a press briefing on June 8 that *asymptomatic transmission appears to be “very rare.” *

A cited paper stated:
The *highest estimate was a transmission rate of 2.2%*, suggesting “asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection.”

3.  As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is was *no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases* (HCID) in the UK.





						High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)
					

Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England.




					www.gov.uk
				




4. Lockdown strategy wasn't based on any scientific study. It was based on a girls school computer project.

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/board...ear-olds-school-computer-model-project.87553/

5. Chance of children dying from covid19 are less than being struck by lightening.

"Sir David crunched the data on the number of people who had died from Covid-19 over the ten-week peak of the pandemic spanning March 28 to June 5. He found that for the majority of us, the risk was so small that it “would normally be *deemed an acceptable part of life*”.


Becka, I'd like to stress, that I am in no way underestimating or downplaying the problem, just, that the risks are much lower than the terrifying headlines would lead you to believe.

There is only a 0.2% chance of dying from covid19 and that risk is now even lower now recent treatments have shown this chance is even lower with remdesivir or budesonide.









						Gilead says remdesivir reduces risk of death in coronavirus patients
					

In a new study, nearly 75% of those treated with remdesivir recovered compared to 59% not given the drug and 7.6% of patients on the drug died compared to 12.5% of those not receiving it.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Given most people are picking up the virus from home, in carehomes, hospitals and places of work, perhaps we should be having a LOCK OUT and not a LOCK IN?


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jul 15, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> There is only a 0.2% chance of dying from covid19 and that risk is now even lower now recent treatments have shown this chance is even lower with remdesivir or budesonide.



The "new study" reported by the Daily Fail is presumably the one discussed here: https://junkcharts.typepad.com/numb...other-covid19-victim-is-science-practice.html

(They had a proper (randomised) study with a placebo group. That didn't show statistical significance for deaths, so they discarded that group and added results from matched patients (not part of their study) who didn't get Remdesivir.)

(In any case, Remdesivir isn't very exciting unless you're American since it's not cheap and they've bought most of it.)


----------



## Becka (Jul 15, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> 2. WHO declared on 9th June
> Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) technical lead for COVID-19, said at a press briefing on June 8 that *asymptomatic transmission appears to be “very rare.” *



The following day Dr. Van Kerkhove had to clarify her comments:



> The majority of transmission that we know about is that people who have symptoms transmit the virus to other people through infectious droplets — but there are a subset of people who don't develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don't have symptoms, we don't actually have that answered yet.
> 
> What I was referring to yesterday in the press conference were very few studies — some two or three studies that had been published that actually try to follow asymptomatic cases, so people who are infected, over time, and then look at all of their contacts and see how many additional people were infected.
> 
> And that's a very small subset of studies. So I was responding to a question at the press conference. I wasn't stating a policy of WHO or anything like that.  Because this is a major unknown, because there are so many unknowns around this, some modeling groups have tried to estimate what is the proportion of asymptomatic people that may transmit.





Amity Island said:


> Becka, I'd like to stress, that I am in no way underestimating or downplaying the problem, just, that the risks are much lower than the terrifying headlines would lead you to believe.



But you are.  Firstly because you are implying that the headlines you read, which you interpret to mean the risk is low, is the truth, but the headlines I supposedly read are leading me to be terrified and that this is wrong.

I also do not simply read headlines, when there is something in which I want to know more about I do research to properly understand it.  Although in the cause of Hitchens, I have no desire to know what someone with no scientific or medical expertise has to say on public health policy.  Someone who thinks homosexuality is abnormal.  He does get afforded any benefit off the doubt by me.

But I do know, for example, that a High Consequence Infectious Disease is a classification which designates that a particular protocol be followed.  Amongst other things, for a disease be a H.C.I.D. requires a high mortality rate and it being medically difficult to detect.  However it does not consider how prevalent it is, the severity of symptoms, or other lasting effects.

Covid-19 ceased to hold this status because testing had advanced to the point it was easier to detect and it was showing a 1% mortality rate.  Whilst that was below the mortality criteria, at one person in every hundred dying is still not s low number.  It is the equivalent of one person dying on every full double decker bus.  Over 500 people at an Old Firm derby.  It is ten times more lethal than the flu after annual vaccination programmes.

And to quote Public Health England on the declassification: “This change in status does not detract from the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is reflected by the fact that COVID-19 has its own separate pandemic response programme.”

The headline that it was no longer a high consequence infectious disease may have made it sound like it was not considered a risk, but knowing want that actually means, knowing that it is still so dangerous that it needs its own entirely separate protocol suggests it is not something trivial.

Just like when someone from W.H.O. comes out with a controversial and disputed statement that seemingly goes against all current scientific advice and data, I want to understand the context and contradiction.

But the other way you are downplaying the problem is that the greater risk from how we behave is borne by other people.  That is why I used the examples of drink driving, because you are not simply risking your own life but those of everyone else you encounter.  Smoking bans exist in enclosed spaces because you are not just risking your own life, but those of everyone else you encounter.

You may think the risk is low and are happy to accept the chance of getting ill, that does not make it fair for you to expect other people to be forced to accept that risk.  The risk to the wearer of ill effects from wearing a mask is very low, to refuse to do so is not a matter of science or principal.  It is a lack of regard for anyone else.  Even if you think it unnecessary, it is a small imposition to do out of respect for anyone else.  A tiny gesture to show your respect to people with a different opinion.  A minuscule acceptance that no one actually knows for sure and it is better to be cautious.

Unless you have something more recent to show otherwise, the last research I read about showed that people are at their most contagious in the presymptomatic phase.  That means they will be entirely unaware they are spreading the disease.  But the time they do know, by the time they go into isolation, the worst of the damage will have already been done.

And not only do they not know they are spreading it, they have no idea of the health risks of anyone they encounter.  They do not know if the person in front of them in a queue has medical complications.  The risk is not the same to everyone.  How arrogant it would be to assume that if my personal risk is low then the risk to everyone else must be low too.

That is why you cannot simply sign a waiver to say you are accepting the risks and then behaving like everything is normal.  They are not just your risks to accept, they are also the risks to everyone you encounter.

Imagine someone were to waive all the measures and precautions to be able to go out to live their normal life, but then becomes infected.  They show symptoms and go into isolation, but just the day before they had passed the virus onto someone else they stood next to in a shop.  And that other person becomes infected and eventually dies.  How is that not manslaughter?

Involuntary manslaughter is to cause the death of another person through recklessness or criminal negligence.  Recklessness is to intentionally take a cause of action with disregard for the risks.

Signing a waiver means accepting those risks exists, and that you have no regard for them.  And as it is the lives of other people being risked, not just your own, you are saying you are okay with your actions causing the death of another person.  Signing a waiver is pre-admitting culpability for manslaughter.  Just as it would be if you could sign a waiver when you leave a pub drunk and drive home.

What a horrible society it is where people think it is okay to deliberately risk the lives of other people.

What a horrible society it is where people want to live in a society which allows that to happen.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 15, 2020)

Becka said:


> You are implying that the headlines you read, which you interpret to mean the risk is low, is the truth, but the headlines I supposedly read are leading me to be terrified and that this is wrong.


Becka,
I'm not implying anything nor am I assuming anything at all, all I have done is refer to official statements as should everyone.

What part of the official statements are not true?

*"asymptomatic transmission appears to be very rare"

"on surfaces, the virus is in such tiny amounts it can only be theoretically to be transmitted leaving less than 0.1% chance of catching it"

"it is very unlikely COVID-19 can be transmitted through food or food packaging, so shoppers can remain confident buying British fruit and veg" 

"As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK "

"Lockdown strategy wasn't based on any scientific study. It was based on a girls school computer project"

 "Chance of children dying from covid19 are less than being struck by lightening"

 "Sir David crunched the data on the number of people who had died from Covid-19 over the ten-week peak of the pandemic spanning March 28 to June 5. He found that for the majority of us, the risk was so small that it “would normally be deemed an acceptable part of life”

 "There is only a 0.2% chance of dying from covid19" 

*


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 16, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> "asymptomatic transmission appears to be very rare"



I have to confess that that particular phrase leapt out to me as i read the thread as being nonsensical. I don’t know the credentials of the person who offered that opinion (I don‘t see it as a fact, much less an official one), but i can’t believe it is shared by all virologists and communicable disease experts.

I mean... how could you possible measure or establish it as a fact?

”This thing, which we are not looking for, and cannot measure is having very little effect” Um... what??

Surely you could equally state as a fact that the *vast majority of infections are likely to be caused by asymptomatic transmission*?

To know that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare’ with any certainty, surely you would have to absolutely and definitifely know where and how every person who contracted Covid was exposed to enough of the virus to become infected, and then further know whether the source or sources of the virus that caused the infection were symptomatic or asymptomatic (and if asymptomatic... you would therefore have to know the covid status of every single person all the time since literally anyone might theoretically move from ‘not infected’ to ‘infected’ at any moment - though as yoi mention there are ways of reducing individual risk).

As with all science, there are differences of opinion within the research and specialist community... and they try to reach a consensus. So to my simple unscientific mind some of your facts, like the asymptomatic one and also perhaps the ‘surfaces’ one are more than likely open to debate within scientists and specialists.

0.2% chance of dying seems signigicantly lower than many other figures too (eg the 1% figure that @Becka quotes). According to the internet this morning there have been 292,000 confirmed cases in the UK and 45,053 deaths. Which makes 15.4 deaths per 100 cases. 15.4% rather than 0.1%... what’s the old saying about lies and statistics? It matters of course, which numbers you use to get to the result, and, in a sense, what you are trying to say. There are approx 66.65 million people in the UK. Which would make 45,053 deaths only 0.07 per hundred people in the UK. So is it 15.4%? 1%? 0.1% or 0.07%. All might be offered as ‘facts’.

I also take with a huge pinch of salt the suggestion that the lockdown strategy was based on a school project - that smacks of journalistic sneering and dismissal rather than a serious suggestion. A global pandemic is having a global response, and we can see various countries using various different types of lockdown strategy with various effects. There are differences of opinion about whether we moved quickly enough, too slowly, were too loose or too draconian... but our lamentable position at the upper tier of deaths in Europe certainly could be seen to suggest that our lockdown wasnt lockdowny enough to me.

Just my opinion.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 16, 2020)

Well, if you use UK figures you will get unrealistic results compared to what is really happening. There hasn't been a Covid death in Scotland for 7 days, which skews the figures - it's a lot worse in England than it would seem from the fiddled figures.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jul 16, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I have to confess that that particular phrase leapt out to me as i read the thread as being nonsensical. I don’t know the credentials of the person who offered that opinion (I don‘t see it as a fact, much less an official one), but i can’t believe it is shared by all virologists and communicable disease experts.



That claim (and the withdrawal the next day) was significant news:









						WHO expert backtracks after saying asymptomatic transmission 'very rare'
					

Maria Van Kerkhove says she accepts models show up to 40% of infections come from asymptomatic people




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I have to confess that that particular phrase leapt out to me as i read the thread as being nonsensical. I don’t know the credentials of the person who offered that opinion (I don‘t see it as a fact, much less an official one), but i can’t believe it is shared by all virologists and communicable disease experts.
> 
> I mean... how could you possible measure or establish it as a fact?
> 
> ...


Hi Mike,

I do try to steer away from opinions for this very reason and I didn't give mine for that reason. Opinions don't solve anything or lead anywhere except long protracted debates, that's why I only stated some officially published comments by official sources. No amount of opinion or debate will change what they have said, although the accuracy is difficult to check. Like you say, there is no way for any of us to validate any of the official statements and figures, but you have to have some faith and trust in what they say, otherwise where do you start? 

Everyone has their opinions on the pandemic and how governments have dealt with it, and everyone's opinion is equally valid.

Mike, you replied to my reference to the quote ( *"asymptomatic transmission appears to be very rare"* ) by WHO's technical lead (Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, who has more qualifications and experience on infectious disease than I can include) on the worldwide Covid19 pandemic. 

" Surely you could equally state as a fact that the *vast majority of infections are likely to be caused by asymptomatic transmission*?"

Yes, but where is the official source for such a statement? Mike, I can only refer to what has actually been said by officials. N.B The quotes I gave are not my opinion.  

Also, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove never retracted "that" statement, she just clarified it to say (see source below) that that statement was given based on "real world evidence" and that *she still stands by it,* but her employer (who pays her wages) THE W.H.O wanted her to give an opposing statement, one that suits the companies computer models, rather than real world evidence!!!

This is her revised statement the following day.

"*Modelling* studies estimate that up to 40% of coronavirus infections could be transmitted by people who have the virus but no symptoms", a World Health Organization expert has acknowledged after her comment on Monday that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare” caused a stir.

But Dr Maria Van Kerkhove maintained that *real world data* suggested it could still be a "*rare event*". 









						WHO expert backtracks after saying asymptomatic transmission 'very rare'
					

Maria Van Kerkhove says she accepts models show up to 40% of infections come from asymptomatic people




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> That claim (and the withdrawal the next day) was significant news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bruce,
The statement wasn't withdrawn nor did she backtrack the next day (have another read of it and you will see), nor was her original statement shown to be untrue. Her professional experience and judgment just didn't fit in with her employers wishes of referring to their computer models rather than real world evidence.

The guardians headline for that article

"who-expert-backtracks-after-saying-asymptomatic-transmission-very-rare" 

is a perfect example of how headlines set people up for being mislead.

It couldn't be further from the truth! She did no such thing, but many people will believe the headline and not the substance.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 16, 2020)

We just haven't had enough experience with this virus to build accurate computer models, I'm sure their models are based to a degree on past flu epidemics, where the WHO opinion might well be true.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> We just haven't had enough experience with this virus to build accurate computer models, I'm sure their models are based to a degree on past flu epidemics, where the WHO opinion might well be true.


WHO knows! lol


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jul 16, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> The statement wasn't withdrawn nor did she backtrack the next day (have another read of it and you will see), nor was her original statement shown to be untrue. Her professional experience and judgment just didn't fit in with her employers wishes of referring to their computer models rather than real world evidence.



The headline seems to me to basically summarise the article. I agree the subhead (about agreeing with the models about 40% asymptomatic spread) is a bit of a stretch. She's more acknowledging that we don't really know rather than confirming particular numbers.

Well, it's not just that WHO wants to believe that asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread is common. There are some anecdotes which seem much easier to understand if it happens relatively often, and the apparent difficulty of containing the disease would surely be less than it in fact is if it was just the case that sick people had to isolate.

UK problems in care homes seems to me more consistent with asymptomatic spread than its absence, as another example.

So overall it seems like it's not just people who are coughing who are spreading the infection. CDC also seems to agree, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> The headline seems to me to basically summarise the article. I agree the subhead (about agreeing with the models about 40% asymptomatic spread) is a bit of a stretch. She's more acknowledging that we don't really know rather than confirming particular numbers.
> 
> Well, it's not just that WHO wants to believe that asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread is common. There are some anecdotes which seem much easier to understand if it happens relatively often, and the apparent difficulty of containing the disease would surely be less than it in fact is if it was just the case that sick people had to isolate.
> 
> ...


Thanks Bruce, 

It's helpful when there's an official source to refer to.

The report states:

"Reported cases of infected persons who transmitted the virus to others while pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic have occurred within families or households during shared meals, or during visits with hospitalized family members". 

Hence what I said about having a "lock out" instead of a "lock in".


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jul 16, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> "Reported cases of infected persons who transmitted the virus to others while pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic have occurred within families or households during shared meals, or during visits with hospitalized family members".
> 
> Hence what I said about having a "lock out" instead of a "lock in".



Yes, there seems to me to be a strong case for isolating people properly rather than having them isolate in their households. A lot of transmission seems to happen with people who live in the same house, so our current policies may well be making that worse.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Yes, there seems to me to be a strong case for isolating people properly rather than having them isolate in their households. A lot of transmission seems to happen with people who live in the same house, so our current policies may well be making that worse.


Thanks Bruce! At Last! Someone else understands what I am talking about. Thank Goodness!


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 16, 2020)

How about this from a published report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control? It clarifies the possibility of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission, and in the end kinda backs up my suggestion that there is simply no way of knowing what the proportion of cases is that are coming via asymptomatic/presymptomatic routes, because the data simply aren’t up to it. Infectiousness seems highest just as the symptoms emerge, but you can certainly be infectious before you get symptoms, and you may never get symptoms at all. The quality of observational data are poor, so if you are relying on that and ignoring the mathematical modelling that uses Covid’s similarities with flu behaviour, then you don’t leave yourself much to work with, and definitive statements like ‘very rare’ seem a little more like (expert) opinion than evidence-based to me?

Ive added emphasis:


*Role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals*
Asymptomatic infection at time of laboratory confirmation has been reported from many settings [8,29-34]. Some of these cases developed some symptoms at a later stage of infection [35,36]. In a recent review, the proportion of positive cases that remained asymptomatic was estimated at 16%, with a range from 6 to 41% [37]. In another systematic review, the pooled proportion of asymptomatic cases at time of testing was 25% [38]. A majority of these cases developed symptoms later on, with only 8.4% of the cases remaining asymptomatic throughout the follow-up period [38]. There are also reports of asymptomatic cases with laboratory-confirmed viral shedding in respiratory and gastrointestinal samples [35,39,40]. *Similar viral loads in asymptomatic versus symptomatic cases have been reported, indicating the potential of virus transmission from asymptomatic patients* [41].

Asymptomatic transmission (i.e. when the infector has no symptoms throughout the course of the disease), is difficult to quantify. *Available data, mainly derived from observational studies, vary in quality* and seem to be prone to publication bias [38,42]. *Mathematical modelling studies (not peer-reviewed) have suggested that asymptomatic individuals might be major drivers for the growth of the COVID-19 pandemic* [43,44].

Although transmission from asymptomatic carriers has been reported [45,46], *the risk of transmission from pre-symptomatic or symptomatic patients is considered to be higher*. Viral RNA shedding is higher at the time of symptom onset and declines after days or weeks [13].

*Pre-symptomatic transmission (i.e. when the infector develops symptoms after transmitting the virus to another person) has been reported* [34,47,48]. Exposure of secondary cases occurred 1–3 days before the source patient developed symptoms [48]. It has been inferred through modelling that, in the presence of control measures, *pre-symptomatic transmission contributed to 48% and 62% of transmissions in Singapore and China, respectively [49]. Pre-symptomatic transmission was deemed likely based on a shorter serial interval of COVID-19 (4.0 to 4.6 days) than the mean incubation period (five days) [50].*

Major uncertainties remain with regard to the influence of pre-symptomatic transmission on the overall transmission dynamics of the pandemic *because the evidence on transmission from asymptomatic cases from case reports is suboptimal.*









						COVID-19
					

See all information on COVID-19, situation updates, risk assessments, questions and answers, latest evidence, surveillance and laboratory guidance and how to protect yourself and others.




					www.ecdc.europa.eu
				





There may well be studies that say the opposite, of course... this was just the first one I found!


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> How about this from a published report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control? It clarifies the possibility of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission, and in the end kinda backs up my suggestion that there is simply no way of knowing what the proportion of cases is that are coming via asymptomatic/presymptomatic routes, because the data simply aren’t up to it. Infectiousness seems highest just as the symptoms emerge, but you can certainly be infectious before you get symptoms, and you may never get symptoms at all. The quality of observational data are poor, so if you are relying on that and ignoring the mathematical modelling that uses Covid’s similarities with flu behaviour, then you don’t leave yourself much to work with, and definitive statements like ‘very rare’ seem a little more like (expert) opinion than evidence-based to me?
> 
> Ive added emphasis:
> 
> ...


Mike,

It gave me a cough just reading that! lol all this talk of covid19.

I'll have a look and get back.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 16, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> How about this from a published report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control? It clarifies the possibility of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission, and in the end kinda backs up my suggestion that there is simply no way of knowing what the proportion of cases is that are coming via asymptomatic/presymptomatic routes, because the data simply aren’t up to it. Infectiousness seems highest just as the symptoms emerge, but you can certainly be infectious before you get symptoms, and you may never get symptoms at all. The quality of observational data are poor, so if you are relying on that and ignoring the mathematical modelling that uses Covid’s similarities with flu behaviour, then you don’t leave yourself much to work with, and definitive statements like ‘very rare’ seem a little more like (expert) opinion than evidence-based to me?
> 
> Ive added emphasis:
> 
> ...


Hi Mike,

Thanks for all the info. 

Firstly, we can certainly eliminate the "pre-symptomatic" data, as that was never mentioned in Dr Maria Van Kerkhove's statement  *"asymptomatic transmission appears to be very rare". *

Regarding her statement, I can only conclude that in her role as COVID19 lead for the World Health Organisation, she too has seen all the types of studies you've referenced, yet still came to her conclusion that "asymptomatic transmission is very rare".

As we know, she did add an additional statement the next day which talks about a computer model, which I think it would be safe to say, that at the moment this type of "evidence" is not actual evidence and the reliability of models is limited because there just isn't enough data input to make a decent model. 

As I said before, you have to put trust in the people trusted and relied upon to draw a professional conclusion from what evidence they have seen. I certainly wouldn't like to nor do I have the qualifications, experience or knowledge to be able to challenge that opinion and I'm not aware of anyone else with her credentials and experience to challenge her either. 

That's me done on this subject...I'm not here to defend someone I've never met. 

She said it not me and i'm not sure why I am being challenged on a statement made by someone else? 

*I'm not* saying she's right or wrong, I only referred to her statement as it's from a reliable source, not some conspiracy nut.

If anyone feels so strongly about her statement being wrong, you could write to the WHO and provide evidence to the contrary.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 16, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> She said it not me and i'm not sure why I am being challenged on a statement made by someone else?


Only because you asked another member which of the facts you had presented it was that they had issues with, and Dr Kerkhove‘s comment was one of the things you had posted that made me think, “well that doesn’t make sense to me... if you can‘t and aren’t measuring it - how can you make an assessment of how large or small an effect it is having”



Amity Island said:


> Regarding her statement, I can only conclude that in her role as COVID19 lead for the World Health Organisation, she too has seen all the types of studies you've referenced, yet still came to her conclusion that "asymptomatic transmission is very rare".



Well in which case it seems we are down to semantics... I am far less interested in the precise sandboxing of asymptomatic spreaders vs people spreading coronavirus with no symptoms who then develop them later. Pragmatically I am more interested in people behaving in such a way as to limit their ability to spread coronavirus even if they don’t have any symptoms, because the science shows that not having symptoms *today* doesnt mean that you haven’t got, and aren’t spreading covid... so it's better if everyone to takes reasonable precautions.

But yes... I think the conversation has run its course!


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 23, 2020)

On 13 May, the _Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection _published a report in the US National Library of Medicine titled ‘A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers’. Written by Chinese doctors working in Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, this had been able to trace and test 455 individuals — 35 hospital patients, 196 family members and 224 hospital staff — who had been brought into contact with an asymptomatic patient admitted to hospital in January and subsequently found to be infected with SARs-CoV-2. They concluded:


‘It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.


‘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. This finding implies that there is _no need to worry unduly_ for asymptomatic or mild patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.


‘Under the development of epidemic circumstance, more and more public concern is on the increasing number of asymptomatic or mild patients hid in the community. However, combined with our results and the defense measures currently completed, we hope _such worries are misplaced_.’


Another study on ‘Modes of contact and risk of transmission in COVID-19 among close contacts’, published on 26 March, tested 305 contacts of 8 asymptomatic cases and found 1 instance of secondary transmission. A study on ‘Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea’, published on 23 April, found 4 asymptomatic cases out of 97 infections, and, again, none of their 17 household contacts acquired secondary infections. A study on ‘Contact Tracing Assessment of COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics in Taiwan and Risk at Different Exposure Periods Before and After Symptom Onset’, published on 1 May, reported that ‘none of the 9 asymptomatic case patients transmitted a secondary case’ to their 91 close contacts. A study on ‘SARS-CoV-2 transmission in different settings: Analysis of cases and close contacts from the Tablighi cluster in Brunei Darussalam’, published on 8 May, reported that among 9 cases with 691 contacts there were 15 incidence of secondary transmission. A summary review of medical studies ‘Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: systematic review and meta-analysis’, published on 10 May, found that, among these four studies providing direct evidence of asymptomatic transmission, the rate of infection among 1,091 study cases ranged from none to 2.2 per cent. And a study reporting ‘No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020’, published on 28 May, found that an asymptomatic schoolchild with SARs-CoV-2 who came into close or casual contact with 180 people resulted in ‘no confirmed cases of COVID-19’.


----------



## Robin (Jul 23, 2020)

And meanwhile, the virus is moving the goalposts...








						Coronavirus: Are mutations making it more infectious?
					

While there have been thousands of changes to the virus only one is seen as possibly altering its behaviour.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



Does this mean that any studies which involve data from early Chinese infections will prove not to hold true for the virus as it now is in most Western countries, I wonder? Time will tell.


----------



## Amity Island (Jul 23, 2020)

Robin said:


> And meanwhile, the virus is moving the goalposts...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Robin,
That does make me wonder about how we'll ever find a vaccine if the virus keeps mutating?


----------



## Robin (Jul 23, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Robin,
> That does make me wonder about how we'll ever find a vaccine if the virus keeps mutating?


So far, the Oxford vaccine team say they are working on disabling a certain spike on the virus that doesn’t seem to be one that has or (hopefully) will mutate. Fingers crossed...


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 24, 2020)

The spike on the virus is common to all coronaviruses, so this vaccine is more of a generic coronavirus vaccine. It may help stop getting a cold - around 20% of the 100 or so viruses that cause colds are coronaviruses. It needs the spike to lock onto cells, so it’s unlikely to change by mutation - it would stop the virus from working properly.


----------

