The idea that weak or absence of evidence for asymptomatic spread is making a case against lockdowns and other preventive measures is self-defeating in so many ways. So I'll just list a few:
If asymptomatic spread wasn't a thing, it would imply that all the cases must be the result of symptomatic spreaders. This would imply we would have to quarantine everyone with cold symptoms ultra-hard, not less, because apparently their distancing and mask-wearing isn't enough.
Further, the study that found only few 100 asymptomatic cases and no symptomatic cases among 10M people was done in Wuhan - the place that had locked down ultra-ultra-hard. Did the lockdown achieved the almost total suppression of the virus? Looks like it. nature.com/articles/s4146…
Again, the study found 300 asymptomatic and 0 symptomatic cases. This means 100% of the spread that was going on in Wuhan in May was asymptomatic. It seems like a stretch to argue from there that asymptomatic spread isn't a thing. How did the 300 asymptomatic get infected?
Finally, should we trust the 300 asymptomatic cases in the first place? Probably not. Ten million tests will produce a few false-positives, which surprisingly doesn't seem like a problem for the anti-lockdown folks when the case numbers can be interpreted against lockdowns.
Further, virus cultures were negative for all positive cases, "indicating no “viable virus”". This suggests that these cases had already recovered from an infection (190 were antibody-positive) and the tests only found RNA fragments. No large potential for secondary infections.
What to make of the negative test results of the close contacts of the asymptomatic cases? See above - and we don't know which preventive measures they took no matter of symptoms or not.
In general, the biggest caveat about the 'asymptomatic' notion is that 'asymptomatic' can also mean 'presymptomatic'. We know that infected people can be contagious days before experiencing symptoms. That's a strong point in favor of general distancing, masks, hygiene.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andreas Backhaus

Andreas Backhaus Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AndreasShrugged

1 Dec
Many papers are now investigating whether YouTube is creating "echo chambers", mostly regarding the (far) right. In principle, an interesting topic. However, if one of the labels for "far right" is "IDW", it's starting from false premises. arxiv.org/pdf/2011.12843… @EricRWeinstein ImageImage
Consequently, the paper lumps people like @SamHarrisOrg @BretWeinstein @joerogan @GadSaad @reason @ScottAdamsSays @benshapiro together with white nationalists and neonazis under the label "far right". Note that "Real Coffee with Scott Adams" is only labeled as "right" though. ☕️ ImageImage
How did this happen? The paper provides sources for the labels. So it's just repeating what others have already done, without checking whether it makes sense. Playing it safe, one may say. ImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
8 Nov
Feeling quite compassionate for the people who apparently have been going through hell, psychologically, during the past 4 years. They've been dragged from one mass delusion to another, with their emotional states being played like a fiddle by the media. Scary stuff.
By the beginning of Trump's term, they believed Trump won in 2016 due to Russia collusion, by the end, they believed the U.S. was on the brink of becoming a fascist dictatorship. Both beliefs, and many more in-between, have been refuted by the facts.
In retrospect, why don't they realize that? I suppose because they're getting a big reward now from the current mass delusion that they've prevailed over the forces of evil. If the happy ending to a story is that you've slain Darth Vader, you'll like that ending.
Read 4 tweets
6 Nov
Sehr gute Darstellung der Tatsache, dass es auch dann noch viele weitere Infektionen geben wird, wenn R<1, die Zahl der aktiven Infektionen aber bereits hoch ist. Wenn R=0,9 ist gilt: Aktive Infektionen x 9 = zusätzliche Infektionen bis Stillstand. Rechenbeispiel für Deutschland:
Wir haben aktuell ~200.000 aktive Fälle. Seien wir mal zu optimistisch und unterstellen, es gäbe keine Dunkelziffer der Infektionen. Bei R=0,9 würde dies 1,8 Millionen weitere Infektionen in Deutschland bedeuten. Bei einer Infektionssterblichkeitsrate von 0,65% -> +13.000 Tote.
Bei einem Dunkelzifferfaktor von 2,5 (immer noch optimistisch) wären wir aktuell bei 500.000 aktiven Infektionen und 4,5 Millionen, die bei R=0,9 noch dazukommen würden. Zusammen 5 Millionen Infektionen -> 0,65% Sterblichkeit -> +32.500 Tote.
Read 4 tweets
19 Oct
Some quick fact-checking on @SKMorefield's text:
- Charts about mask mandates and covid cases don't tell us much because, as noted, they don't have a control group showing what would have happened without mandates
- Causality between mandates and cases could run both ways
- Once you add reasonable control groups, evidence points in favor of masks, e.g. nber.org/papers/w27891
- Denmark, Norway and Finland all recommend masks by now, not everywhere, not all the time, but reasonably
- Linked report about pneumonia due to masks is totally anecdotal
- The global infection fatality rate reflects that much of the world is younger than the West, IFRs in our countries are higher and we have large older populations at high risk
- Sunetra Gupta has so far been wrong about everything, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunetra_G…
Read 4 tweets
10 Oct
Notion: Gap between excess deaths and confirmed Covid-19 deaths could be "lockdown deaths". Let's test this: (a) States with lockdown but low Covid should have excess deaths from lockdown (b) States without lockdown but Covid shouldn't have excess deaths unexplained by Covid.
For (a), New York had a long lockdown with stay-at-home orders extending into June. But as New York suppressed the virus, both Covid-19 deaths and other excess deaths fell down a cliff simultaneously. So that part of the lockdown deaths theory doesn't hold up.
For (b), Arkansas adopted only mild measures, no SAH orders. But as Covid-19 deaths went up (blue), also other excess deaths (green) went up above average (orange line). CDC estimates non-Covid excess deaths are 158-1203, compared to 1500 Covid-19 deaths. So (b) doesn't hold up.
Read 5 tweets
9 Oct
What's wrong with this notion? Many things: First, it seems to be based on the very recent increase in cases that has been happening mostly in French-speaking Brussels and Wallonia. Before that, Flanders had actually been more affected (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_…).
So, Yascha is looking only at the current pattern, but not at the dynamics. Second, he singles out one variable that might explain the pattern ("cultural attitudes") and claims that's it. That's generally speaking wrong. What about commuting? French-speaking Belgians commute...
...mostly in the French-speaking parts. So some infections introduced into Wallonia and Brussels are very likely to spread only within these areas because almost no one would carry them over to Flanders. That's not culture but potentially very important. Third, Flanders had a bad
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!