According to New York Times 90 percent of Covid-19 cases insignificant

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (36 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

    This is one of he many reasons I can't be afraid of Covid-19.  The numbers are Bogus.  I've provided a link to a magazine quoting the NYT and the original NYT article.  Why?  So, those on the left can see this is a valid story from their favorite NYT and in other publications.

    "Nearly 90 % of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States could be clinically insignificant and non-contagious, according to a recent newspaper analysis of laboratory data, raising the possibility that the widespread coronavirus mitigation measures put in place over the last several months may have been based in part on overstated viral test results." … contagious

    New York Time Article … contagious

    1. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The numbers have been badly skewed due to at first lack of testing. In the early months, we had no real testing only symptoms to determine if a person may have COVID  So many were possibly counted as infected, as well as if they parished they would be counted in the death toll. WE also had the yearly flu circulating which was H1N1. H1N1 has the same symptoms and is a virulent killer to the elderly.

      Then, we as a nation started testing at an abundance. This massive testing revealed many that were and are asymptomatic, this worked to increase the infection rate, but not the death toll.

      This increase in testing has well proven via stats that the virus is not as virulent, to most of the public. It spread quickly so it provides mass infection. I doubt if we will ever realize the massive number of how many were actually infected. We can't even really collect a proper death toll due to many in the beginning being counted as having COVID that may not have had it, but had H1N1.

      The one positive, we may have an undetermined herd for fall. I am an RN, I volunteered a couple of shifts a week. I was tested due to returning to a hospital setting. I discovered I had it at some period. I never had any symptoms...  I was lucky.  But, it certainly got me to thinking about how many in our population are walking around not realizing they had it.

      I think the only way we could arrive at a more accurate number is due to more antibody testing. WE will never know how many deaths were counted as COVID that were not actually related to COVID.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this


        The articles show how the testing involves magnifying and replicating the sample taken.  Sometime, it is magnified and replicated over 30 times.  A physician stated when this is done, many people could have almost any disease. 

        I have to ask why they are doing such a thing? 

        I'm sure we both know the answer.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image79
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          As of yet, I don't think scientists have yet to know what that ‘minimum infectious viral load (dose) is for COVID-19.  I believe this may be why all cases even those that have low viral doses and remain asymptomatic are being counted when tested.  It certainly is spiking the number of cases. This could be why the CDC has put out new testing guidelines, that ask only persons with symptoms to be tested. The numbers on this virus are so badly messed up, there will be no true numbers in the end.

          When a viral dose is low it may indicate that the person's innate immune response kicked in and fought off the virus or it can indicate one is in an early stage of the infection.   Scientific studies indicate that when the viral dose is low the virus is less likely to spread it. With COVID-19, many people's immune systems (innate and acquired) obviously work well for over 85 % of the population who recover from it with more or less mild influenza-like illness.

          If any virus is present in a test, even a small load it's counted as an infection. This is why the infection case count is and has been going up with increased testing. The numbers now indicate many just don't get sick or pass the infection on.

          It's obvious with COVID-19 that we have a high number of people that are and were asymptomatic,  and were counted due to testing even with a low viral dose.  It also increased testing has well proved that we have many more asymptomatic cases than we thought. In regard to spreading with a low dose --- As a rule, the less viral load the less chance of shedding, and spreading the infection.

          One positive ---It is well indicated that  COVID-19  can be fought off by a healthy immune system.  That is why a high percentage of those that died had underlying health problems, over 90% of people that died had underlying health issues.

          The more we test the more we find we have many asymptomatic cases, and at this point, it will work to give us a better idea of the true mortality rate in the end.  The higher the infection cases will work to lower the mortality rate.

          On Nov 3 we will all be told time to buck up and get back to normal... (Being a bit sarcastic).

    2. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Does this explain, why the population adjusted death toll of the US has passed Italy´s and Sweden´s numbers by now? Certainly not.

      If you look at the catastrophic outcome, it is absolutely unimportant if 90% or 80% or 70% or 95% are insignificant for contagion. The US as a whole doesn´t have the matter under control.

      Does this explain that Corona death toll within 12 months will be in the range of US WWII casualties? But it took WWII much longer.

      So, what are you trying to tell your fellow US citizens?

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        According to the CDC 90 percent of those who have died of Covid have had underlying conditions.  The recording of deaths is completely bogus.  A nurse told me a man died of a gunshot wound...and because prior to his death...he displayed Covid symptoms...his cause of death was listed as Covid.  Did you know if a medicare patient dies of Covid or is listed as having Covid they get more money...they have a financial incentive. 

        I'm not saying anything.  I'm presenting facts.  Read the NYT article and follow the science.

        This explains the death count.

        Here is an article from USA today.

        "According to a CDC report, nearly 90% of patients hospitalized with coronavirus (COVID-19) had one or more underlying health conditions." … 962721001/

        "Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators" … 000638001/

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          It is unimportant if hospitals get paid for listing patients as Covid19.
          For counting the excess deaths in a country you only have to look at statistics. … eaths.htm. Excess deaths don´t have name tag.

          With all the exclusions (figure notes) made, excess death is probably much higher. May be there are 2 or 3 more viruses running amok? Of course not. During lockdown, no labour accidents, less traffic accidents, still more deaths? Because hospitals are paid? Ridiculuous.

          Simply accept the data and forget about anecdotes and "i know someone who knows someone who saw something".

          We should never allow the excuse that people with precondition die anyways.
          Those who die loose 11 years of life expectancy and that includes precondition.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image79
            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Pointing out that so many that perished were elderly with underlying conditions is not an excuse, it's a fact that pertains to this new virus.

            The stat is correct,  90% of COVIV deaths were elderly with underlying conditions.  It's sad and unfortunate this was the case... However, this new virus was very particular in who it chose to attack, as most viruses are.  In the case of  H1N1, it was not as picky, it killed young and old.   I would suppose we can be in some respects grateful, not due to the fact that COVID was geared to kill the elderly, but due to the fact, so many that get the virus have little to no symptoms, like myself... 

            Too little is known about this virus. We do know it kills the elderly, and many carry the virus without ever being aware of it.

            It seems we should leave it to the scientist, and in reality, they say very little... That should tell us all something...

  2. GA Anderson profile image89
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    I am guessing that the answer you imply is 'politics'.

    Now, after we have learned more about the virus I think you might be right, but in the beginning, I think the answer was more 'fear' than politics. Which means I think we over-reacted because we didn't know what we didn't know.

    As we learn more it may turn into a sort of vindication for the president, i.e. his intent to maintain calm instead of panic.

    I do think our continued safety efforts are too draconian, but I don't think that this information diminishes Covid-19 to a Flu comparison.


    1. Ken Burgess profile image77
      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think they may be much more than draconian.

      I think many of these Governors and Mayors have made deliberate efforts to stir unrest, panic, etc.  they were willing to put Party politics or ideology ahead of the good of the people.

      The extent that some went through to infringe upon businesses, forcing them to remain shut down, or putting such restrictions on them they cannot hope to be profitable, is nothing less than an abuse of power.

      Allowing riots to go on unchecked, either destroying entire blocks of their cities, or taking them over as occurred in Seattle is nothing less than allowing Anarchy to rule over their streets.

      These things were supported by politicians and DAs that are culpable in the spread of rioting, looting, burning and bankruptcy, they deliberately allowed for the chaos to continue, while defunding police forces.

      The entirety of this is to defraud Americans of their liberties and freedoms. No clearer evidence to this intent has been provided than what the Democrats in Congress tried to get passed recently: … 203381002/

      1. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Even as a tangent to this topic, I don't see your link as relative to your "liberties" point.

        I support Voter ID measures, and I don't support the mentioned segment of the HEROS Act, but I don't see how that defrauds anyone of their liberties.

        It is my understanding that speaking of nationwide vote counts such as our presidential elections, voter fraud is almost statistically insignificant. Even when considering the vote tallies that affect the EC votes from states like Wisconsin, where the 2016 difference was only tens of thousands, the statistical history of voter fraud would still not support a big worry about voter fraud affecting the election results.

        I can agree that this was just a sneaky backdoor effort by the Democrats to circumvent voter ID efforts, but I don't see it as a threat to any of my liberties. What am I missing?


        1. Ken Burgess profile image77
          Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I disagree on two points.

          You say the amount of voter fraud going on is insignificant, however, that is only under the "old rules" of Absentee ballots and voter ID requirements.

          Consider what occurred in NYC alone in a recent election they held where mail-in ballots were allowed.

 … -election/

          In some ways that may seem a positive, as that means they found over 80,000 votes that did not qualify out of over 400,000.  Or you can look at it as over 80,000 votes weren't counted... and if you don't think those types of numbers on a larger scale (20% or more of a State's votes) aren't going to have people up in arms and questioning the validity of the count, then I think you are sorely misjudging the volatility of this election.

          The liberties aspect I am talking about, comes from the fact that these States and Cities run by what I perceive to be ideologue Mayors and Governors, are abusing their authority, stepping all over people's liberties and freedoms, in two ways.

          The first is in allowing (aiding) protests to take over city blocks, or should I say occupy them, as they have done in Portland for months, and in Seattle for a couple weeks, before the murders forced these "politicians" into allowing the Police to do their jobs.

          These are the same politicians that are the most draconian in how they are shutting down businesses and public spaces.

          Right now Americans are fleeing these absurdities in NYC, LA, Seattle, by the hundreds of thousands because they can.  They have other places they can go. 

          But if these ideologues, this Party, gains control of the Nation, how far are they going to go?  How many of these draconian enforcements and restrictions become national?

          1. GA Anderson profile image89
            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Relative to your voter fraud point I can agree that what you say is a possibility, but my point is that by historical example of the states that have had permanent mail-in balloting it isn't a probability.

            The only "liberties" aspect I can see from your HEROS Act link—relative to your Liberal-run cities explanation, would be if the Democrats did pull-off major ballot fraud. Once again, history doesn't support that as a probability.

            I prefer in-person voting with ID requirements. And I do worry about the possibility of this rush to national mail-in voting. But, there isn't a lot of proof to support that worry. I worry just as much about those "ideologues" gaining control through the polls as I do through the mail.


            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              "Relative to your voter fraud point I can agree that what you say is a possibility, but my point is that by historical example of the states that have had permanent mail-in balloting it isn't a probability."

              How do we know?  For instance, if a ballot is mailed to John Doe at 1800 Pennsylvania Ave. and returned filled out, do we check that John still lives there?  Do we check that he is alive?  Do we ask him if he filled out the ballot himself rather than a stranger that lifted it from the USPS?

              In other words, what steps are those "permanent" states taking to ensure that all the ballots they mail out are going to living people legal to vote in the election?  As far as I can tell there aren't any checks being done after the first registration - am I wrong, and each and every name/address is checked somehow (how would that be done outside of knocking on every door?) before mailing a ballot?  Is every ballot followed up on, asking the (presumed) recipient if they got it, filled it out and mailed it back?

              1. GA Anderson profile image89
                GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                We don't know. That is why I said it was a possibility. The history of the states already using main-in balloting is why I said it was not a probability.

                Regarding confirmation steps taken to ensure the correct voter is filling out the ballot, the only step I have heard is the signature verification.

                What if there is fraud . . .  I am just grabbing numbers from memory, and they surely aren't specifically correct. but I believe they are statistically representative: Speaking to the five states that already had mail-in balloting, I recall numbers like 31 fraudulent ballots out of the multi-millions cast.

                What about the 80,000/20% in that New York primary(?)? I will have to check that out, I have only heard the blurbs.


                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You missed the point.  How can you say it (fraud) is not a probability when there is no checking done?  How can you assign a less than 50% probability with no data whatsoever?

                  How do we know there were only 31 fraudulent ballots in those 5 states when we don't check?  How was that number arrived at - was it just a guess or did ballot counters recognize ballots from 31 personal friends that had died or moved?

                  The question was not to prove somehow that there was fraud; it was to cast doubt on the claim that there is virtually no fraud...when we don't check to see if there is or not.

    2. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      My two cents on this. Had we knuckled down and precisely followed the science from the beginning, AND instituted a coordinated federal response for supplies, testing and travel, the lockdowns and business closures would have been much shorter and we would be much better off now. We would still be wearing masks and social distancing, but the virus would likely have been contained enough to allow for our economy to be open at near-normal levels.

      If Trump had leveled with the American people about the virus, followed the science instead of scorning it, and backed his experts instead of contradicting them, our nation would be healing instead of festering.

      Missed y'all. I guess I wasn't permanently banned after all. ;-)

      1. IslandBites profile image88
        IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Hey! Glad you're back!!

      2. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Panther, here is a virtual hug, Welcome back!!

      3. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        That is easy to say but there is no proof to back up such a claim.

        Pretty Panther...welcome back.  The forum will be a better place with you here.

      4. Sharlee01 profile image79
        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Welcome back! You were much missed. No really, so pleased to see you have returned.

  3. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    More understanding... … -up-to-90/

    And one big question to ask would be, if tests don't measure the viral load, how did the Times get their hands on data that did?  And how big was that sample size?  I noticed none of that was in the article.

    'The New York Times reviewed three sets of testing data from Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada.  It found that 90% of people who tested “positive” carried barely any virus.'

  4. GA Anderson profile image89
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Well damn Ms. Welcome back! It made my day when I logged on and saw your comment.

    I agree with most of what you say. I do think it would have been better if the Fed had acted as the nation's 'Supply Sargent' instead of the states having to compete against each other for what they needed. I remember governors talking about this issue.

    I still agree with the direction of leaving restriction decisions up to the states, but I think we would have benefitted from a national coordination program for supplies and logistical needs.

    I have heard an argument that the Feds should also have been running a national testing labs program, but I am unsure that would have been possible. I think they may have done all they could when they cut as much red tape and relaxed as many regulations as they could.

    I stand by my comments regarding Pres. Trump's motives and intentions, as in I don't think they are what his detractors are claiming, but I do think he did badly trying to act on those intentions.


    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Well..... You know I cannot possibly believe Trump sincerely wanted to prevent fear and panic, given that his primary campaign and governing tools are fear and panic.

      And thank you all for the kind welcome!

      1. IslandBites profile image88
        IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Ah, a great leader! Trying his best to prevent panic.

        "We now know the disease. We didn't know it. Now we know it. It affects elderly people. Elderly people with heart problems and other problems. But they have other problems, that's what it really effects, that's it. You know in some states, thousands of people, nobody young, Below the age of 18, like nobody. They have a strong immune system, who knows. You look — take your hat off to the young, because they have a hell of an immune system. But it affects virtually nobody. It's an amazing thing. By the way, open your schools, everybody. Open your schools.”

        200,000+ and counting...

  5. Nathanville profile image93
    Nathanvilleposted 3 years ago

    The article is flawed in so many difference ways, and respondents in this forum are adding ‘claims’ that wasn’t even mentioned in the article:-

    The news article ‘Just the News’, is taking what the ‘New York Times’ said out of context, and twisting the facts to fit Trump’s agenda; not surprising considering that ‘Just the News’ is “Right-wing Bias” publication anyway.

    I would suggest you actually read the actual ‘New York Times’ article, which ‘Just the News’ based its article on, before giving judgement:- … sting.html

    In typical ‘Journalistic’ fashion, the New York Times (to catch the reader’s attention) uses a ‘Heading’, and ‘Sub Heading’ that doesn’t accurately reflect what the article actually says.

    The New York Times Heading is “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be”,

    And their sub-heading is “The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus”

    But if you continue to read the article, the New York Times points out that ‘using the standard PCR test (in the USA), although very accurate, is very time consuming, and in their words “The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.” Because: “Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time.”

    However, the New York Times then goes on to state:-
    “But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the CDC.  Instead, new data underscores the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

    Contrary to what the ‘Just the News’ claims, the New York Times does NOT stipulate what percentage of people with Covid-19 might not be contagious.

    The fact remains:-
    •    40% of people who have the virus are asymptomatic.
    •    Asymptomatic people are contagious (maybe not all, but certainly enough to silently spread the virus)
    •    That the vast bulk of infections are spread by asymptomatic people who are contagious, simply because they don’t know they have the virus, and spread it unwittingly.

    The claims being made in this forum that 90% of people who contract Covid-19 are not seriously affected by it and it’s only the elderly and people with underlying medical conditions who are killed by it, and therefore its nothing to worry about, is flawed thinking.  Besides, considering the size of the American population, the 10% who are adversely affected by the virus is an awful lot of people.

    FACT:  as at 9th September; of the 175,866 official Covid-19 related deaths; 36,857 (20.95%) under the age of 65 died of Covid-19, including children.  So no age group is immune from death from Covid-19.  Also, people at higher risk of death (underlying medical conditions) include people with asthma, diabetes and obesity; which includes a lot of otherwise healthy young Americans.  The total number of Covid-19 related deaths, since last week’s CDC report now stands at 198,520, and still rising rapidly with up to 1,000 deaths (and more) per day.

    For example in the USA diabetes has been the underlying cause for 16.2% of Covid-19 deaths.

    The Fact:  1 in 5 people who die of Covid-19 in the USA are NOT elderly, and 16.2% of all Covid-19 deaths are because of diabetes as being the underlying cause.

    A further point, which is not being discussed in the USA, but which is becoming increasingly clear elsewhere in the world is that (unlike originally thought) that Covid-19 isn’t just a respiratory disease, but it actually affects every major organ in the body.  Consequently, a significant percentage of those who do become seriously ill with Covid-19 but survive, do now have lifelong illnesses as a result of catching Covid-19.

    Turning back to the New York Times article:  As stated in the article, the answer is ‘test, test, test, and more test; but not with the PCR testing, as in the USA it takes too long and causes too many bottlenecks in the test labs (delaying test result even further) e.g. people being tested and contract tracers need the information quickly, in order to stand any chance of curbing the spread of the virus.  Not that the USA has enough contact tracers anyway.

    What the USA needs is to take the UK’s lead, and switch to ‘high-performance LAMP’ salvia quick testing that gives results in just 20 minutes; with an accuracy of 98%. 

    While saliva can be a crude sample for diagnosing disease using traditional PCR, it pairs well with a cheap PCR alternative known as loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), previously used to detect outbreaks of Zika and Ebola in resource-poor countries.

    The new high-performance LAMP, currently being developed in the USA and UK has 1,000 times the sensitivity of a standard LAMP assay, capable of detecting a single copy of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in as little as one microliter of saliva.

    In early August, the UK Government bought millions of two types of these new rapid saliva LAMP tests for the NHS, which gives results in just 90 minutes; with the intention for use in any potential winter surge in Covid-19.

    In early September, the UK started preparations to trial 3 different types of the latest rapid saliva LAMP tests (developed in the UK) which give results in just 20 minutes.   The three different types of these new test kits are to be trialled separately, but simultaneously, in three separate towns in England, in October (Salford, Southampton and Hampshire).  With the intention, that if any of the trials are successful then it will enable 10 million people to be tested a day; giving those who test negative a ‘day passport’ to live normally without the need to socially distance.

    If you want to know the true impact Covid-19 has had on the USA (or any other country), compare the number of deaths this year with the average number of deaths for previous years e.g. it’s one of the methods used in the UK to determine the true number of deaths due to Covid-19.  If you do compare that data you will find that it confirms that the data for Covid-19 related deaths for the USA on the worldometers website is accurate.

    1. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this


      But you cant argue with fanatics.

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, very evident.

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "The news article ‘Just the News’, is taking what the ‘New York Times’ said out of context, and twisting the facts to fit Trump’s agenda; not surprising considering that ‘Just the News’ is “Right-wing Bias” publication anyway."

      Proof?  Are you arguing with the science involved because you don't like it or you don't understand it?

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Nope, the 'Just the News' article has nothing to do with the science; its pure propaganda (misinformation).

        The ‘Just the News’ article is claiming that:
        “Up to 90% of confirmed COVID-19 cases might not be contagious”; which is a lie.

        The New York Times is not making that claim.

        The New York Times is refereeing to the problem of bottlenecking in test results in the ‘Labs’ in USA, causing long delays in the test result, because the USA does not have sufficient resources to do all the tests it needs to do.

        And if you actually read the New York Times article, it actually states in its concluding paragraph:-

        “The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.”

        Also, if you actually read the New York Times article it actually states:-

        “…. researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by CDC.”; but rather to switch to the NEW Rapid Tests (to resolve the problem of bottlenecking) (as the UK is in the process of doing).

      2. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this


        The fact that in the USA just under 40,000 people are testing positive each day (and rising), and that over 1,000 people are dying each day (and rising) should be proof enough on how contagious Covid-19 is. 

        In contrast, new cases in the UK has stabilised at just 3,000 a day, and deaths stabilised at around just 10 deaths a day; is testimony on what a more effective ‘test’ programme, backed-up with more adequate ‘contact tracers’ (and other measures) can achieve to bring the pandemic under control.

        Albeit the UK isn’t the best example of what can be achieved by any means, but until April the UK was making the same mistakes over its mismanagement of testing as the USA e.g. the UK testing programme didn’t start in Ernest until May, so it does make for a good comparison e.g. to date the UK has carried out marginally more tests per head of population than the USA; but instead of reducing testing (has had happened in the USA in recent weeks), the UK is over ambitiously stepping up its testing programme:-

        •    To date, the UK total tests is equivalent to 30.45% of its population (albeit that includes multiple tests on some individuals).

        •    To date, the USA total tests is equivalent to 28.53% of its population (albeit that includes multiple tests on some individuals).

        The right-wing (Trump) propaganda that “up to 90% of confirmed COVID-19 cases might not be contagious” is a false claim with no scientific backing.

        #1:    60% of people with Covid-19 are symptomatic, and like flu, symptomatic people are contagious; debunking the above false claim.

        #2:    Of the other 40% of people with Covid-19, who are asymptomatic, all the evidence to date indicates that asymptomatic patients are as infectious as those who are symptomatic.

        For further information:-

        See the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (similar to the CDC in the USA, except it hasn’t been compromised by politics), topic on the ‘Transmission of COVID-19’, ‘Role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals’ (Latest update 10 August 2020); link below:- … ansmission

        To quote from the above case study:-

        “Similar viral loads in asymptomatic versus symptomatic cases have been reported, indicating the potential of virus transmission from asymptomatic patients.  A community treatment center study…. showed that RT-PCR Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients ….were similar to those in symptomatic patients.”

      3. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        To date the total death toll, relating to Covid-19, in the USA is about 200,000 deaths (in just six months); with current predictions that it could be more than double e.g. over 400,000 deaths by the end of the year.

        How high does the death toll has to get in the USA before the USA President and his followers finally recognise that the pandemic isn’t something that can be marginalised and played down; and that it has to be taken seriously, and something done in earnest to combat the pandemic.  Such as action (similar to European and Asian countries); which includes mass testing, adequate ‘contract tracers’ and proper ‘social restriction’ ‘Regulation’ being applied and adhered to.

        For example, in the UK New ‘Rule of Six’ Laws came into effect on Monday where for example in England it is now illegal for people to gather in groups larger than 6 people inside or outside; with a fine of £100 ($130) for a first offence (doubling for each subsequent offence).

  6. Nathanville profile image93
    Nathanvilleposted 3 years ago

    Heard Immunity
    I still see a number of Americans claiming herd immunity is the best option, in the false belief that the vast majority of Americans have now been exposed to Covid-19.

    FYI, extensive antibody testing in the UK reveals that less than 6% of the UK population have contracted the virus.  Obviously that percentage will be much higher in the USA, but even so, it’s nowhere near high enough to give herd immunity. 

    So to reach herd immunity in the USA, with current Covid-19 death toll already near 200,000, the final death toll would be many times higher than the current figure.

    What value do Americans put on life?

    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Arthur ... you must have gotten this wrong...

      It is not herd immunity ... it is "HERD MENTALITY" as the guy in office said in a recent interview.

      Un be lie vea ble

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, I did see that speech; and in a sense, very apt! 


  7. GA Anderson profile image89
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    To adequately respond would require a deep dive into the years of elections in those five states. I am not motivated enough to do that so I will take the cheap way out.

    I spoke of possibility vs.probability. I didn't speak to data-supported proof for either option. I only related recall of previous readings. I would think that if any of those states had experienced major fraud in their mail-in election balloting it would have made the news.

    To be clear, I am not offering that as proof for a position, I am only noting it as an influence on my perception. My perception is that, in general, mail-in balloting is relatively statistically fraud-free.

    Regarding this specific upcoming 2020 General election . . . I don't know. It is rushed, it is a first-time effort, and I believe there will be a higher motivation to cheat. So, all I can do is hold on to that initial perception and shrug.



This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)