pedrodelavega wrote:robob wrote:Personally, I assume that asymptomatics are at worst 4 times less contagious at best not contagious at all.
Which actually messes up absolutely all the global liberticidal measures.
Well no, "less contagious" does not mean "not contagious"
Statistically absurd: in this case even if the asymptomatic are 1000 times less contagious, we lock everyone up anyway.
robob wrote:In other words, any study that shows that asymptomatics are little or not contagious goes against the decisions of most Western governments. All those who say the opposite are relayed and amplified by the media.
They do not take these unpopular decisions (confinement etc ...) which flatten the economy for fun ...
Stupid reasoning to which I oppose another:
So if they make the decision of global confinement, is it because all the studies which will show that it is not useful, such as the non-contagiousness of asymptomatic patients, are bogus?
Anyway, not to mention those who have a completely asymptomatic form, those who have symptomatic forms go through an asymptomatic incubation phase during which most are contagious (on average 48 hours before the first symptoms). So barrier measures are still necessary.
The studies cited include pre-asymptomatic ones so your speech does not hold up.
I know what I'm talking about, I passed the covid on to 4 of my friends during an evening (where we didn't / badly respect the barrier measures, not well
) before realizing I had it (I developed the symptoms 1.5 days after seeing them).
This argument is not a study:
- nothing proves that what you say is true.
-the example does not do times.
- If I believe you, nothing proves that it is you who is the source of the contamination.
- Nothing shows that one of the guests was not symptomatic
- There is no evidence that a symptomatic person has not passed through the area, leaving the virus everywhere, which is mainly transported manually. (Hence the statistical interest of observational studies on a large number of cases.)
- Etc. ..
