06-10-2020, 11:45 AM
Now, back to my questions. IF we accept that WHO was somewhat accurate in reporting that tracking of asymptomatic cases lead to few transmissions, how does that fit in with what was seen previously. (You can define asymptomatic by any particular level of maximal symptoms. I do NOT want to include pre-symptomatic.)
My guess would be that "asymptomatic" would apply to people who had (perhaps barely detectable) virus in their system but whose immune system kept the virus from replicating more than a certain amount. For those people, the shedding was minimal, resulting in some virus in the environment but not as much as the people in which the virus was replicating a lot (and triggering all the symptoms and immune responses). Because of minimal virus and minimal immune response(?), these people would have minimal symptoms.
At this time, all publicly announced tests are binary. Either Yes or No. I understand that the PCR tests involve up to a certain number of iterations in order to detect the virus. If detection happens within some fixed number N of iterations, the verdict is Yes, otherwise the verdict is No. The number of iterations to detect the virus could be reported, but isn't. I believe the number of iterations could be used as a rough estimate of how much virus was in the sample (which is a function of the amount of virus in the patient along with how well the sample was taken). If the results could give us a finer measure (such as High, Medium, Low level) of the virus present, that might be useful.
So, a person exposed to an "asymptomatic" case would have fewer virus to inhale. The use of masks would help to lower that as well. In either case, the person's body has to react to fewer virons and maybe can do so well enough to keep them from replicating too much.
I could imagine that the use of masks increases the percentage of "asymptomatic" cases. Perhaps people are getting exposed to very minimal number of virus (wafting on the winds from far away) and their immune system is training on them. Then when exposed closely to an "asymptomatic" case, with masks, they get enough dose that they get a level of virus that could be detected. If that does is low enough that their body can deal with it, they too become "asymptomatic". If they get a big dose from someone shedding a lot, their immune system doesn't keep the virus in check, so they get a full blown case, with symptoms.
These dynamics could explain the impressions of some doctors that subsequent infection waves have been less severe.
So, that's a theory (from a lay person) of what might be happening. It's your turn to point out where I'm wrong. Have at it.
My guess would be that "asymptomatic" would apply to people who had (perhaps barely detectable) virus in their system but whose immune system kept the virus from replicating more than a certain amount. For those people, the shedding was minimal, resulting in some virus in the environment but not as much as the people in which the virus was replicating a lot (and triggering all the symptoms and immune responses). Because of minimal virus and minimal immune response(?), these people would have minimal symptoms.
At this time, all publicly announced tests are binary. Either Yes or No. I understand that the PCR tests involve up to a certain number of iterations in order to detect the virus. If detection happens within some fixed number N of iterations, the verdict is Yes, otherwise the verdict is No. The number of iterations to detect the virus could be reported, but isn't. I believe the number of iterations could be used as a rough estimate of how much virus was in the sample (which is a function of the amount of virus in the patient along with how well the sample was taken). If the results could give us a finer measure (such as High, Medium, Low level) of the virus present, that might be useful.
So, a person exposed to an "asymptomatic" case would have fewer virus to inhale. The use of masks would help to lower that as well. In either case, the person's body has to react to fewer virons and maybe can do so well enough to keep them from replicating too much.
I could imagine that the use of masks increases the percentage of "asymptomatic" cases. Perhaps people are getting exposed to very minimal number of virus (wafting on the winds from far away) and their immune system is training on them. Then when exposed closely to an "asymptomatic" case, with masks, they get enough dose that they get a level of virus that could be detected. If that does is low enough that their body can deal with it, they too become "asymptomatic". If they get a big dose from someone shedding a lot, their immune system doesn't keep the virus in check, so they get a full blown case, with symptoms.
These dynamics could explain the impressions of some doctors that subsequent infection waves have been less severe.
So, that's a theory (from a lay person) of what might be happening. It's your turn to point out where I'm wrong. Have at it.