You complain about your ideological opposites in addition mythical things everyday. You possess the exact mentality "you can't fathom" others having.
Plenty of people say it; just like plenty of people would say, "Thanks, Obama," facetiously blaming him for everything. Doesn't matter whose in office, there will be factions of the opposite party whom vehemently believe everything wrong happening is because of whoever is in office.
Nah i was an athlete. Lose and move on. Im not used to being in communication with so many people who lose and act like crybabies for such a long period.
Lol come on... Asymptomatic can and do spread. Please don’t spread that nonsense here or anywhere else. Does nothing to help anyone. Hospitalizations and deaths will lag, so yeah the next few weeks will be very telling. If things keep stay down, great. That’s not to say that things won’t get more severe again come winter.
Mayor of Cleveland (TN) just recovered from Covid. He had double pneumonia. 2 negative tests for it and the third finally came back positive.. (which imo is far more scary than the false positives). He was in ICU and on a ventilator several days. Still relatively young and no health issues. And of course he was greeted by a large crowd of people, wearing masks, but not social distancing, at the hospital entrance when released. I think he got it from that church that is in the news for their negligence.
I'm simply repeating what a WHO official said, other experts have noted this as well. Site a source or STFU.
I think it's silly, but I know the WHO has said it and a few others have said asymptomatic do not or may not be contagious. He's not pulling it out of his ass.
They then immediately backtracked and clarified that they really do not know the very next day. The WHO has been a cluster[uck fay] and anything they say should just be tossed in the bin for right now.
Interesting read that talks thruogh what we know in depth you won't get from MSM. https://empathy.guru/2020/06/29/sen...ic-empathy-in-the-time-of-the-coronavirus-xi/
He seems to think the level of exposure, in terms of virus, impacts the outcome of the subsequent infection. Is this a thing? Does a higher infectious dose affect the outcome in terms of eventual viral load? This being a self-replicating thing, why would an infectious dose within the range of whatever the minimum is to an open mouth kiss matter in the long run?
It's been a thing for a while. Viral load matters a lot. Small exposure much better than big exposure. Also logical. It is why masks help even though not perfect in totally stopping exposure.
Viral load matters with any viral exposure not just Covid. Why sneezing into elbow is better than full spray. Elbow doesn't stop viral spread, just reduces it a lot and it matters.
LOL. This thing would be well under control by now, not spiraling out of control, if asymptotic couldn’t spread. Let’s be real. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread-bn/index.html
Viral load: the concentration of virus within the body. I am not questioning that this matters. I am also not questioning that the amount of exposure matters in terms of whether one is infected, e.g. infectious dose. This person is saying that how sick one becomes is related to the size of the infectious dose. Like let's say we have a pair of identical twins. One (A) shares a straw with an infected person and the other (B) full on plays tonsil hockey with an infected person. Let's assume it is even the same infected person, with the same viruses per unit in that saliva, but with one twin getting a whole lot more than the other. B is more likely to get infected. But if BOTH are infected, e.g. the infectious dose is below sharing a straw with whatever the viral load of that infected person is, the writer of that piece is saying Person B will get SICKER, i.e. have stronger symptoms, than Person A. I can understand that having more replicating viruses increases the risk of infection, but given the rate of replication and exponential growth, the difference in 1.0 infectious dose vs 1,000 infectious dose is separated by an ever shrinking number of replication periods over time, to the point that any difference would surely be negligible in terms of the body's response rather quickly? Like, you don't get milder HIV because you got it from a shared needle and someone else got it from a blood transfusion, and you definitely don't have a harder time passing it on because you only got it from a shared needle so you have lower viral load... Why would it be different with coronavirus? The way you described viral load in the second quote seems to conflate it with infectious dose. An individual having a high viral load would make the amount of material needed for an infectious dose smaller, so ya it matters... but that is not the same thing as saying being infected by the minimum infectious dose will mean appreciably milder symptoms than being infected by a loogey spit directly down one's throat.
