In 2020 there was essentially no chance of asymptomatic COVID spread

[admin]

Please read the important disclaimer at the following link before proceeding further on this page. The administrator of this forum is not a doctor nor licensed or experienced in any aspect of the health care industry.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=227.0

[edit add 8-29-21] Original article from last December titled "Since there's little chance of asymptomatic COVID spread lockdowns are meritless" has been changed to "In 2020 there was essentially no chance of asymptomatic COVID spread", because vaccinated persons are now recognized as asymptomatic spreaders of COVID.For "Big Pharma created hundreds of millions of asymptomatic COVID transmitters" click on this link.

Since there was little chance of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 by unvaccinated persons, lockdowns were meritless in 2020. Which is also why facemasks were unnecessary to prevent non-symptomatic non-vaccinated persons from transmitting COVID.
However in this vaccine era we do seem to be increasingly learning that society and our foreign partners do need to be protected from vaccinated persons, who gain the function of being asymptomatic spreaders of COVID-19 since vaccinated persons are able to spread the virus without even knowing it, while non-vaccinated non-symptomatic cannot. In the U.K. recently symptomatic COVID is up 40% in vaccinated, while down 22% in unvaccinated.

Vaccine rollout forever ended any expectation that quarantine or isolation could ever be effective again when it comes to vaccinated persons. Perhaps the only present hope left for ending the pandemic continues to be, as it has been all along, mass distribution of ivermectin to both unvaccinated as well as vaccinated individuals.



The remainder of this thread confirms that there were essentially no asymptomatic transmitters of COVID before "vaccine" roll out.
[end edit of 8-29-21]



[added 6-2-23] The following video that was banned on YouTube (but is now available on one of the free speech platforms BitChute, at the link below), includes Anthony Fauci stating:
"In all the history of respiratory born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there's a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers."
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kfpNvUFfuUZO/ [end added]

video added 5--25-21



In the following, out of 10,000,000 people, 3,000 were found to be asymptomatic and when 1,174 close contacts of those were explored, 0, none, zilch, nada, were found to have been infected by them. 0 asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 by 3,000 asymptomatic people.

https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomatic-spread-revisited/

Asymptomatic Spread Revisited
Jeffrey A. Tucker
– November 22, 2020

Excerpt:

"The fog of disease mitigation, indeed. But as with most of the “science” throughout this ordeal, it eventually came to be revealed that good sense and rationality would prevail over implausible claims and predictions that led to experiments in social control without any precedent.

In this case, the carrier of rationality is a gigantic study conducted in Wuhan, China, of 10 million people. The article appears in Nature Communications, published November 20, 2020.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w



The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.

    Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.

One might suppose that this would be huge news. It would allow us to open up everything immediately. With the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns crumbled, we could go back to living a normal life. The fear could evaporate. We could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others. We could take off our masks. We could go to movies and sports events.

From what I can tell, there was only one news story that was posted about this. It was on Russia Today. I’ve not been able to find another one. People not following the right accounts on Twitter wouldn’t even know about it at all.

We keep hearing about how we should follow the science. The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening. The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage. You would expect this study to be massive international news. So far as I can tell, it is being ignored.

With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: who is making decisions and why? Again, this brings me back to the metaphor of fog. We are all experiencing confusion and uncertainty over the precise relationship between the strategies and the goals of panoply of regulations and stringencies all around us. Even the rationale has become elusive – even refuted – as frustration and disorientation have displaced what we vaguely recall as clarity and rationality of daily life."

much more
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
____________________________________________

Since according to the above study, there was found to be ZERO chance of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19, lockdowns would seem meritless, but at least from this point going forward, evil. Not only lockdowns, but particularly business closings. The government desperately needs to keep the idea of asymptomatic spread alive or it will loose control over people's minds, and it will be more difficult for big government statist fascists to continue their effort at eliminating small business to help advance their control over big business, while universally increasing dependency on government.
And what about the value of face masks? When everyone is wearing a face mask, how can you identify a person that's wearing it because they are actually symptomatic, so you can be careful to keep your distance from them?

[admin]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China

Abstract

Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in December 2019, and was classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 20201. Following strict lockdown measures, the COVID-19 epidemic was generally under control in China, and the whole country has progressed into a post-lockdown phase. In this phase, countries face new problems and challenges, including how to accurately assess the post-lockdown risk of the COVID-19 epidemic, how to avoid new waves of COVID-19 outbreaks, and how to facilitate the resumption of economy and normal social life. As the city most severely affected by COVID-19 in China, Wuhan had been under lockdown measures from January 23 until April 8, 2020. During the first 2 months after city’s reopening, there were only a few sporadic COVID-19 cases in Wuhan (six newly confirmed cases from April 8 to May 10, 20202). However, there was still concern about the risk of COVID-19 in Wuhan, which seriously affected the resumption of industrial production and social services, and hampered the normal lives of residents. In order to ascertain the current status of the COVID-19 epidemic, the city government of Wuhan carried out a comprehensive citywide nucleic acid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection from May 14, 2020 to June 1, 2020.

The citywide screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan is a mass screening programme in post-lockdown settings, and provided invaluable experiences or lessons with international relevance as more countries and cities around the world entering the post-lockdown phase. In this study, we report the organisation process, detailed technical methods used, and results of this citywide nucleic acid screening.

Results

There were 10,652,513 eligible people aged ≥6 years in Wuhan (94.1% of the total population). The nucleic acid screening was completed in 19 days (from May 14, 2020 to Jun 1, 2020), and tested a total of 9,899,828 persons from the 10,652,513 eligible people (participation rate, 92.9%). Of the 9899,828 participants, 9,865,404 had no previous diagnosis of COVID-19, and 34,424 were recovered COVID-19 patients.

The screening of the 9,865,404 participants without a history of COVID-19 found no newly confirmed COVID-19 cases, and identified 300 asymptomatic positive cases with a detection rate of 0.303 (95% CI 0.270–0.339)/10,000. The median age-stratified Ct-values of the asymptomatic cases were shown in Supplementary Table 1. Of the 300 asymptomatic positive cases, two cases came from one family and another two were from another family. There were no previously confirmed COVID-19 patients in these two families. A total of 1174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19. There were 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 cases who participated in the screening. Of the 34,424 participants with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive again, giving a repositive rate of 0.310% (95% CI 0.423–0.574%).

Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study.

All asymptomatic positive cases, repositive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the results of nucleic acid testing were negative. None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period. In this screening programme, single and mixed testing was performed, respectively, for 76.7% and 23.3% of the collected samples. The asymptomatic positive rates were 0.321 (95% CI 0.282–0.364)/10,000 and 0.243 (95% CI 0.183–0.315)/10,000, respectively.

The 300 asymptomatic positive persons aged from 10 to 89 years, included 132 males (0.256/10,000) and 168 females (0.355/10,000). The asymptomatic positive rate was the lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below (0.124/10,000), and the highest among the elderly aged 60 years and above (0.442/10,000) (Table 1). The asymptomatic positive rate in females (0.355/10,000) was higher than that in males (0.256/10,000).
Table 1 Characteristics of asymptomatic positive individuals.
Full size table

The asymptomatic positive cases were mainly domestic and unemployed residents (24.3%), retired older adults (21.3%), and public service workers (11.7%) (Fig. 1).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

[admin]

Here's a JAMA published CDC "model", not a study. In other words created possible outcomes based on assumptions. And we know about how credible some studies published in JAMA are. Let alone the credibility of models as we learned at the beginning of the pandemic from the English modeling.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707

What we do know is if the government admits to limited asymptomatic spread, they will no longer be able to control the minds of the population and continue the national "obedience training".

For example, I believe the following was the "asymptomatic" spreader, that was later found out to be symptomatic after all. Whoops!
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762028

Horowitz: A severely symptomatic lie about asymptomatic spread
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/ready-horowitz-a-severely-symptomatic-lie-about-asymptomatic-spread

"Dr. Fauci himself, before this became political and a tool for control, stated very emphatically that "the driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person." "Even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks," said Fauci in a January 28 press conference.

The World Health Organization said in May that asymptomatic spread was "very rare." Then, like any time a major scientific figure reveals the truth, the WHO suddenly recanted that position when the media raised a howl.

A U.S.-based study from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Department of Biostatistics, observed similar low rates of transmission among the asymptomatic. Researchers found symptomatic individuals transmitted the virus at rates 28 times higher than asymptomatic individuals. Another Chinese study from May found very weak transmission capability among asymptomatic infections.

We also know that as many as 50% of flu cases every year are asymptomatic, yet we never panic or assume they are drivers of community spread."
__________________________________________

https://hellboundanddown.com/2020/12/26/university-of-florida-researchers-find-no-asymptomatic-or-presymptomatic-spread/

"University of Florida researchers find no asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread

Four researchers from the University of Florida Department of Biostatistics co-authored a study published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association. They performed a meta-analysis of 54 studies looking at the household secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2. According to the CDC, the secondary attack rate is the number of new cases among contacts divided by the total number of contacts.

The researchers confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 is more contagious than other coronaviruses, with a secondary attack rate of 16.6% (95% CI 14.0%-19.3%) compared to 7.5% (95%CI 4.8%-10.7%) for SARS-CoV and 4.7% (95%CI, 0.9%-10.7%) for MERS-CoV.

Their findings also confirmed the attack rate is higher to adult contacts compared to child contacts and to spouses compared to other family members.

The secondary attack rate for symptomatic index cases was 18.0% (95% CI 14.2%-22.1%), and the rate of asymptomatic and presymptomatic index cases was 0.7% (95% CI 0%-4.9%), “although there were few studies in the latter group.” The asymptomatic/presymptomatic secondary attack rate is not statistically different from zero, and the confidence interval is technically 0.7 ± 4.2, resulting in a range of -3.5%-4.9%, but attack rates cannot be negative, so it is truncated at 0."

[admin]

This disease WAS well in hand with reported 80% herd immunity in states like Texas. Essentially 0% chance of asymptomatic spread illustrated the evil of forcing face masks in order to force Americans to falsely view their friends and neighbors as being a threat to them.

However it now appears that since the biological agents that are being experimented with may only suppress symptoms, while allowing the person who received the experimental agent to catch as well as transmit the Wuhan Virus, this mass scale experiment may be creating a class of asymptomatic mutant virus shedders that will indeed endanger the rest of the population through asymptomatic spread, which was not even a factor prior to the beginning of this experiment.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=719.0
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=727.0