8 ms·

This is a long-used term that isn't specific to COVID-19, which describes a legitimate medical phenomenon with a wide historical basis. Ever head of Typhoid Mar

This is a long-used term that isn't specific to COVID-19, which describes a legitimate medical phenomenon with a wide historical basis. Ever head of Typhoid Mary? She was a superspreader. Interestingly, people who claim everything about COVID-19 is a conspiracy by the media (or the elites, or whoever) to control the populace with fear are significantly more likely to be superspreaders. Why? Because all the simple, moderately-inconvenient precautions they refuse to take legitimately do slow the spread of the disease. Someone who frequently goes within 6 feet of other people while not wearing a mask and leaves their home more frequently than necessary has a much higher chance of getting the disease, a much higher chance of transmitting the disease to each person they come into contact with while contagious, and also a much higher number of contacts to potentially infect. The term is actually incredibly useful, even on an individual level - if I'm considering who I'm willing to interact with, someone who's come into close contact with 500 people in the past week while not wearing a mask is significantly more dangerous to me and my loved ones than someone who has come into contact with 50 people at a distance of 6 feet or more while wearing a mask.

giardini 6y ago
"You talkin' to me, huh, you talkin to me?" Because I already know all that hot air. But in the context of the article we're all superspreaders or we're NOT all superspreaders and they don't explain (nor CAN they explain) the difference b/c THEY DON'T KNOW! Yes, of course "superspreader" means something within the confines of social diseases or slow spread. But today, in the context of Covid-19 it has lost any distinction from "carrier" or "infected". But most importantly a term that is undefined or poorly defined brings no new information to the table. Possibly for a good reason: covid-19 is very contagious, so contagious that everyone indeed may be a "superspreader". But if so, what new does that reveal, what does it tell you that is useful and not already known? How does it help do the math? How would it change how the powers-that-be model? Would they model CovId-19 and AIDS with different math? Thanks to crappy stats, crappy science and a crappy pseudo-science (epidemiology) that works with models that don't apply this is (unfortunately ) one more useless term. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and is merely the "superspreading" of yet more fear by fearmongering media and individuals. This has nothing to do with people who don't take the same precautions you do. thomaslord says> "The term is actually incredibly useful..." For what? No one, not even a moron, needs the term "superspreader" to know to avoid someone who interacts daily with many ill people or "who's come into close contact with 500 people in the past week while not wearing a mask". Using the term is fearmongering that adds no information to the situation. Not that there is much information to begin with - all authorities and "experts" can do is count illnesses and count deaths (and they _still_ aren't doing that very well).
- bsder 6y ago
  > But if so, what new does that reveal, what does it tell you that is useful and not already known? How does it help do the math? It dramatically changes your emphasis even if you can't predict in advance. If we have a uniform spreading, then we have to heavily lock down everything and we have to be invasive about contact tracing. We have to worry obsessively about anyone with human contact in the service industry. We have to keep people at home except for the most imperative of reasons. We have to trace even the most casual of contacts if someone gets diagnosed. If it's mostly superspreaders, then we only really have to be careful about gatherings--sports, church, theaters, etc. We can trace in response to an outbreak because we're likely to know who is driving it. And reasonable protection measures (like wearing a mask) protect service workers against incidental contact from most contagious people. This is the difference between massive shutdown and actually getting back to life but with some precautions. The problem is that superspreaders are that way because they both emit high viral loads (for whatever reason) AND engage in behaviors that encourage the transmission of the diseases. And, funny that AIDS was mentioned, because it seems like one particularly attractive, promiscuous flight attendant was responsible for a lot of the initial AIDS transmission--a classic superspreader.
  - giardini 6y ago
    Nothing you said is useful(in the USA at least): we aren't going to do "contact tracing", we aren't going to "keep people at home" unless they want to stay at home. We can't "diagnose" anyone b/c the testing is too slow. So everything you talk about is moot, beside the point, and useless in the current context (which will not change). And in particular, everything about the "superspreader" concept is useless in improving our situation vis-a-vis Covid-19. And in reference to your AIDS story: I'm familiar with it, so is almost everyone else and HOW THE F* DOES IT PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO OR GUIDANCE IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION? (Please do not answer - that is what is termed a "rhetorical question" - one intended not to be answered, but to make a point known).
    - bsder 6y ago
      > Nothing you said is useful(in the USA at least): we aren't going to do "contact tracing", we aren't going to "keep people at home" unless they want to stay at home. We can't "diagnose" anyone b/c the testing is too slow. New York and the states surrounding it prove you wrong. New York, in particular, has almost 100% contact tracing due to 10,000 contact tracers. They also have a positive test rate of about 1% which indicates that they are testing all the people that need it and then some. New York has an R0 < 1.0. This could be contained, even in the US. Even at this late date. But hey, what's the point in arguing with someone who is impervious to facts that disagree with their predetermined political narrative? No need to answer. That's a rhetorical question.

giardini 6y ago

"You talkin' to me, huh, you talkin to me?" Because I already know all that hot air. But in the context of the article we're all superspreaders or we're NOT all superspreaders and they don't explain (nor CAN they explain) the difference b/c THEY DON'T KNOW! Yes, of course "superspreader" means something within the confines of social diseases or slow spread. But today, in the context of Covid-19 it has lost any distinction from "carrier" or "infected". But most importantly a term that is undefined or poorly defined brings no new information to the table. Possibly for a good reason: covid-19 is very contagious, so contagious that everyone indeed may be a "superspreader". But if so, what new does that reveal, what does it tell you that is useful and not already known? How does it help do the math? How would it change how the powers-that-be model? Would they model CovId-19 and AIDS with different math? Thanks to crappy stats, crappy science and a crappy pseudo-science (epidemiology) that works with models that don't apply this is (unfortunately ) one more useless term. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and is merely the "superspreading" of yet more fear by fearmongering media and individuals. This has nothing to do with people who don't take the same precautions you do. thomaslord says> "The term is actually incredibly useful..." For what? No one, not even a moron, needs the term "superspreader" to know to avoid someone who interacts daily with many ill people or "who's come into close contact with 500 people in the past week while not wearing a mask". Using the term is fearmongering that adds no information to the situation. Not that there is much information to begin with - all authorities and "experts" can do is count illnesses and count deaths (and they _still_ aren't doing that very well).

bsder 6y ago
> But if so, what new does that reveal, what does it tell you that is useful and not already known? How does it help do the math? It dramatically changes your emphasis even if you can't predict in advance. If we have a uniform spreading, then we have to heavily lock down everything and we have to be invasive about contact tracing. We have to worry obsessively about anyone with human contact in the service industry. We have to keep people at home except for the most imperative of reasons. We have to trace even the most casual of contacts if someone gets diagnosed. If it's mostly superspreaders, then we only really have to be careful about gatherings--sports, church, theaters, etc. We can trace in response to an outbreak because we're likely to know who is driving it. And reasonable protection measures (like wearing a mask) protect service workers against incidental contact from most contagious people. This is the difference between massive shutdown and actually getting back to life but with some precautions. The problem is that superspreaders are that way because they both emit high viral loads (for whatever reason) AND engage in behaviors that encourage the transmission of the diseases. And, funny that AIDS was mentioned, because it seems like one particularly attractive, promiscuous flight attendant was responsible for a lot of the initial AIDS transmission--a classic superspreader.
- giardini 6y ago
  Nothing you said is useful(in the USA at least): we aren't going to do "contact tracing", we aren't going to "keep people at home" unless they want to stay at home. We can't "diagnose" anyone b/c the testing is too slow. So everything you talk about is moot, beside the point, and useless in the current context (which will not change). And in particular, everything about the "superspreader" concept is useless in improving our situation vis-a-vis Covid-19. And in reference to your AIDS story: I'm familiar with it, so is almost everyone else and HOW THE F* DOES IT PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO OR GUIDANCE IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION? (Please do not answer - that is what is termed a "rhetorical question" - one intended not to be answered, but to make a point known).
  - bsder 6y ago
    > Nothing you said is useful(in the USA at least): we aren't going to do "contact tracing", we aren't going to "keep people at home" unless they want to stay at home. We can't "diagnose" anyone b/c the testing is too slow. New York and the states surrounding it prove you wrong. New York, in particular, has almost 100% contact tracing due to 10,000 contact tracers. They also have a positive test rate of about 1% which indicates that they are testing all the people that need it and then some. New York has an R0 < 1.0. This could be contained, even in the US. Even at this late date. But hey, what's the point in arguing with someone who is impervious to facts that disagree with their predetermined political narrative? No need to answer. That's a rhetorical question.