8 ms·

Exactly this. We’ve also been doing this forever. If I go somewhere and someone has a runny nose and is coughing, I am going to stay away. Nothing new here. C

by human 6y ago

Exactly this. We’ve also been doing this forever. If I go somewhere and someone has a runny nose and is coughing, I am going to stay away. Nothing new here. COVID is different in the sense that we assume everyone has it. We distance from healthy looking individuals.

tomrod 6y ago
COVID-19 is highly infectious before symptoms appear.
- _red 6y ago
  Yes, but Stanford says the CFR for those under 70 is 0.04% https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v...
  - tingletech 6y ago
    that pre-print says median of 0.04% infection fatality rate for people < 70, based on other pre-prints they analyzed. That is a 1 in 2500 probability of dying if you are infected. 0.25% is what the preprint says for overall infection fatality rate -- 1 in 400 probability of dying if you are infected.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Not horrible odds. In 2016, the probability of dying in an automotive accident in the US was 1 in 8800. [1] And for the 2017-2018 flu season, the odds of dying from it were 1 in 5400. [2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... 2. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
      - tingletech 6y ago
        even assuming the preprint is near accurate (which I do not) the numbers were based on infection fatality rate, defined in the preprint as probability of death if infected, not overall. The overall odds that you have died from corvid-19 this season so far in the US are 1 in 2433 (based on 411 deaths per Million population at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ). Often the "not horrible odds" argument is made by someone being dismissive of folks who are following health orders -- I still look both ways if I cross the street.
        Fjolsvith 6y ago
        Interestingly, those odds are not accurate for everyone, regardless of whether its a COVID death or an automobile accident death. Literally, by spouting your 1/2433 odds, you being disingenuous for most people. A person could greatly reduce their personal odds by taking extra vitamins and eating healthy and getting good sleep, entirely without wearing a mask. Your street crossing example is an example of you following a health order for your own personal safety. You could simply use the crosswalk without looking - that would be you relying on others to wear their mask to ensure your personal safety. When you make your personal safety dependent on my goodwill, I'm going to let you fall, hard.
        tingletech 6y ago
        I was just trying to get apples to apples numbers to your equally disingenuous numbers. Your point seems to be that folks should not follow health orders since the odds are good for most people, and that you will do your part to make sure folks will get what they deserve?
        Fjolsvith 6y ago
        People don't get what you think they deserve, they always get what they deserve, period. People haven't worried about flu death rates or (insert other disease) death rates before. Why should I go out of my way to protect someone who won't protect themselves by staying home locked away from the world? After I recovered from my COVID, why should I wear a mask if I'm COVID antibody positive? To make you feel better?
  - tomrod 6y ago
    This is a red herring. CFR is not material to infectivity rate
- perf1 6y ago
  WHO says something different: Q: Can asymptomatic coronavirus disease be transmitted? A: Asymptomatic transmission refers to transmission of the virus from a person, who does not develop symptoms. There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > WHO says something different: IIRC, I've read the WHO tends to drag its feet with new information, and is usually the last major organization to come around to new findings. They might not be the best group to listen to in a fast moving area like this. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-one-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o... > But interviews with nearly 20 scientists — including a dozen W.H.O. consultants and several members of the committee that crafted the guidance — and internal emails paint a picture of an organization that, despite good intentions, is out of step with science.... > But the infection prevention and control committee in particular, experts said, is bound by a rigid and overly medicalized view of scientific evidence, is slow and risk-averse in updating its guidance and allows a few conservative voices to shout down dissent. > “They’ll die defending their view,” said one longstanding W.H.O. consultant, who did not wish to be identified because of her continuing work for the organization. Even its staunchest supporters said the committee should diversify its expertise and relax its criteria for proof, especially in a fast-moving outbreak.... > The W.H.O. has found itself at odds with groups of scientists more than once during this pandemic. > The agency lagged behind most of its member nations in endorsing face coverings for the public. While other organizations, including the C.D.C., have long since acknowledged the importance of transmission by people without symptoms, the W.H.O. still maintains that asymptomatic transmission is rare. > “At the country level, a lot of W.H.O. technical staff are scratching their heads,” said a consultant at a regional office in Southeast Asia, who did not wish to be identified because he was worried about losing his contract. “This is not giving us credibility.”
    - jonfw 6y ago
      They're attempting to paint this advice as coming from experts- but without attaching names, we're relying solely on the credibility of the author from the NYT. Given the incentive structure of being an internet blogger (sensationalism = $$$$), that credibility is very limited. Science is much more rigorous than this article- but it's a fun read.
- snazz 6y ago
  I've seen mixed messages as to the infectiousness of the virus with regards to asymptomatic carriers (or those with hardly-noticeable symptoms). Can anyone point me to some recent research that clarifies this? It seems like the most important statistic for creating policy in the near future, as fevers can be detected with thermal cameras.
  - tomrod 6y ago
    Viral shedding maximizes before or at symptom onset. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-viral-shedding-can-occur-2-3-days-before-symptoms-5/ https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-viral-shedding-can... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931898 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931898 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-severity-of-covid-19/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
    - eiji 6y ago
      Can somebody explain what is meant by viral shedding here? Some of those links mention cotton swabs used for testing. So viral load is shedding of infectious "compound" into throat and nose mucus. But no symthoms means there is no cough yet. How much of that is shedding into air you breath out? Is it assumed this is the same?
      - tomrod 6y ago
        It means you're infectious, and measurably so.
        Fjolsvith 6y ago
        But not for life. The infection ends. And, lately, with the likelyhood of death being greatly, greatly reduced.

by human 6y ago

tomrod 6y ago

COVID-19 is highly infectious before symptoms appear.

_red 6y ago
Yes, but Stanford says the CFR for those under 70 is 0.04% https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v...
- tingletech 6y ago
  that pre-print says median of 0.04% infection fatality rate for people < 70, based on other pre-prints they analyzed. That is a 1 in 2500 probability of dying if you are infected. 0.25% is what the preprint says for overall infection fatality rate -- 1 in 400 probability of dying if you are infected.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    Not horrible odds. In 2016, the probability of dying in an automotive accident in the US was 1 in 8800. [1] And for the 2017-2018 flu season, the odds of dying from it were 1 in 5400. [2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... 2. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
    - tingletech 6y ago
      even assuming the preprint is near accurate (which I do not) the numbers were based on infection fatality rate, defined in the preprint as probability of death if infected, not overall. The overall odds that you have died from corvid-19 this season so far in the US are 1 in 2433 (based on 411 deaths per Million population at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ). Often the "not horrible odds" argument is made by someone being dismissive of folks who are following health orders -- I still look both ways if I cross the street.
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago
        Interestingly, those odds are not accurate for everyone, regardless of whether its a COVID death or an automobile accident death. Literally, by spouting your 1/2433 odds, you being disingenuous for most people. A person could greatly reduce their personal odds by taking extra vitamins and eating healthy and getting good sleep, entirely without wearing a mask. Your street crossing example is an example of you following a health order for your own personal safety. You could simply use the crosswalk without looking - that would be you relying on others to wear their mask to ensure your personal safety. When you make your personal safety dependent on my goodwill, I'm going to let you fall, hard.
        tingletech 6y ago
        I was just trying to get apples to apples numbers to your equally disingenuous numbers. Your point seems to be that folks should not follow health orders since the odds are good for most people, and that you will do your part to make sure folks will get what they deserve?
        Fjolsvith 6y ago
        People don't get what you think they deserve, they always get what they deserve, period. People haven't worried about flu death rates or (insert other disease) death rates before. Why should I go out of my way to protect someone who won't protect themselves by staying home locked away from the world? After I recovered from my COVID, why should I wear a mask if I'm COVID antibody positive? To make you feel better?
- tomrod 6y ago
  This is a red herring. CFR is not material to infectivity rate
perf1 6y ago
WHO says something different: Q: Can asymptomatic coronavirus disease be transmitted? A: Asymptomatic transmission refers to transmission of the virus from a person, who does not develop symptoms. There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > WHO says something different: IIRC, I've read the WHO tends to drag its feet with new information, and is usually the last major organization to come around to new findings. They might not be the best group to listen to in a fast moving area like this. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-one-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o... > But interviews with nearly 20 scientists — including a dozen W.H.O. consultants and several members of the committee that crafted the guidance — and internal emails paint a picture of an organization that, despite good intentions, is out of step with science.... > But the infection prevention and control committee in particular, experts said, is bound by a rigid and overly medicalized view of scientific evidence, is slow and risk-averse in updating its guidance and allows a few conservative voices to shout down dissent. > “They’ll die defending their view,” said one longstanding W.H.O. consultant, who did not wish to be identified because of her continuing work for the organization. Even its staunchest supporters said the committee should diversify its expertise and relax its criteria for proof, especially in a fast-moving outbreak.... > The W.H.O. has found itself at odds with groups of scientists more than once during this pandemic. > The agency lagged behind most of its member nations in endorsing face coverings for the public. While other organizations, including the C.D.C., have long since acknowledged the importance of transmission by people without symptoms, the W.H.O. still maintains that asymptomatic transmission is rare. > “At the country level, a lot of W.H.O. technical staff are scratching their heads,” said a consultant at a regional office in Southeast Asia, who did not wish to be identified because he was worried about losing his contract. “This is not giving us credibility.”
  - jonfw 6y ago
    They're attempting to paint this advice as coming from experts- but without attaching names, we're relying solely on the credibility of the author from the NYT. Given the incentive structure of being an internet blogger (sensationalism = $$$$), that credibility is very limited. Science is much more rigorous than this article- but it's a fun read.
snazz 6y ago
I've seen mixed messages as to the infectiousness of the virus with regards to asymptomatic carriers (or those with hardly-noticeable symptoms). Can anyone point me to some recent research that clarifies this? It seems like the most important statistic for creating policy in the near future, as fevers can be detected with thermal cameras.
- tomrod 6y ago
  Viral shedding maximizes before or at symptom onset. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-viral-shedding-can-occur-2-3-days-before-symptoms-5/ https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-viral-shedding-can... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931898 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931898 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-severity-of-covid-19/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
  - eiji 6y ago
    Can somebody explain what is meant by viral shedding here? Some of those links mention cotton swabs used for testing. So viral load is shedding of infectious "compound" into throat and nose mucus. But no symthoms means there is no cough yet. How much of that is shedding into air you breath out? Is it assumed this is the same?
    - tomrod 6y ago
      It means you're infectious, and measurably so.
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago
        But not for life. The infection ends. And, lately, with the likelyhood of death being greatly, greatly reduced.