I guess this means taking your temperature doesn't mean much?

Those kind of numbers just seem really suspicious. I'd be looking at the tests (or procedure?).

....and try to maintain it.

they found about the same percentage of positive but asymptomatic.

Keep in mind the false negative rate, as well.

Look at the tests. The low-ball number I've seen for the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is 10-12%, peer reviewed. Others have come in a bunch higher.

A lot of people really want this number to be as close to zero as possible, and multiply repeated results. Because if it's true, a lot of claims fall flat and a lot of proposals for moving forward need to be seriously rethunk.

symptoms -- ie, infection wasn't devastating to their health.

Maybe two weeks later they aren’t asymptotic any more?

that. But who knows, everyone seems to be stumbling through this.

same thing is happening all over the country because trump has yet, and it's now April, the fourth month we've known about this most contagious virus, he has yet to establish a federal testing and contact tracing program but he wants to open up the country.

We are being led to our doom by this repug idiot who just wants to get re-elected and escape jail. If sheltering in place stops the non-symptomatic people will be out among us and many won't be wearing masks.

is what's done to people who test positive?

And if you read what the virologists say about asymptomatic folk, you'll find that they have a lot of doubt as to how infectious they actually are.

There are a lot of things that haven't been checked out, at least not enough to be publishable.

It's best to assume that they *are* infectious, but not forget that's an assumption.

Too dangerous to take chances.

Trump and RepubliCON Senators are being directed from afar........

We know that tRump would never pressure them to fudge the results.

Nonetheless, the validity of the results should be questioned. The statistical probability that so many do not show symptoms is not really fathomable.

It's worrisome if COVID is as dangerous as billed.

But if 1/3 of people show no symptoms and most show slight symptoms, then the death rate's way, way down. It means most of the people who've suffered have never been tested. And it's not as dangerous as billed.

and are dying.

Not sure if it's "as dangerous as billed"?? 735k KNOWN infected, nearly 40k DEAD Americans so far. And that's only from what LITTLE testing has been done. The actual numbers are likely much, much higher.

And you’re questioning the dangerousness of the virus?

It's hard to argue it has a low death rate.

CDC definitely needs to be "actively looking into" those universal testing results alright.

If accurate, that's more than a little disconcerting.

"None of the 93 homeless people who tested positive for the coronavirus in San Francisco’s largest shelter showed serious symptoms of the disease, lending urgency to the need for widespread public testing and emphasizing the importance of “contact investigations” the city is now ramping up."


https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/None-of-homeless-who-tested-positive-at-big-SF-15206152.php

symptoms show up eventually.

It's not clear which test was used (antibody or RNA), but either way, those 146 folks most likely didn't all get exposed on the same day and so would be at different stages of their disease progression. In other words, many are likely to have already come out the other end of the 14-day post-exposure period unaffected. And given that these folks are not likely to have the strongest immune systems around, these results suggest that this virus, while very contagious, may not be as lethal as originally feared.

It won't be popular around here though because this place is all fear-mongering all the time.

shows widespread infection rates with low levels of serious symptoms - that's a good thing.

streets.

Who knows at this point, and until we get wide spread testing and honest data compiling we are really not sure about much.

It could be faulty tests, but that is not likely since not all people tested positive. You would think if the batch of tests were bad they would all test positive.

What does this say about the rest of the population? How many asymptomatic people are walking around?

Makes you wonder.

I know Pine Street Inn very well, people I'd known for years lived there, took care of their residents in the hospital, used to call them when I needed a couple of bodies for heavy lifting. The population tends to be older, high substance abuse rates, many with heart disease and/or COPD, and all male. It's just the kind of place you'd expect to be decimated by this bug.

Good news: they're going to have to revise mortality stats down, especially among at risk populations. I have to wonder if prior exposure to coronavirus that causes colds might have a protective effect, conferring at least partial immunity.

Bad news: this thing is spreading faster than anticipated, with a larger population of asymptomatic people shedding virus and passing it on.

In any case, a lot of rethinking needs to be done.

There were some characters at the Pine Street Inn. There were amazing stories from the staff and residents. There were also a lot of sad and tragic stories too.

and Trump doesn't want that to happen. Massive testing.

of viral and bacterial infections among children from very different socio-economic backgrounds. They found that while there were about as many overall infected children, those of them among the very poor living in sometimes squalid conditions actually fared the contagions far better than their more affluent children living in more sanitary conditions. The more affluent actually had an overall higher degree of severe infections and resulting morbidity outcomes. I can't recall off the top of my head which type of infections they were compiling the information on (and there was little sophisticated information about infectious diseases at that time overall), but I think the infection was measles or smallpox. So, it's interesting that the Boston study seems to point in a similar direction to those very early studies, in which those living in the meanest conditions, i.e. on the street with with dodgy opportunities to practice good or regular hygienic routines. Maybe as a species we've all gotten too clean (or at least most of us living in the most developed societies).

We don't know how much we don't know.

symptoms and that is what we want. We want them all to get well. But now we need to help them find living accommodations so they won't be homeless anymore. They may recover from the virus but they also need to recover from homelessness.

It's virtually impossible for all of them to not show symptoms. Unless the reality of the virus' characteristics are very different than the behavior of most other coronaviruses, we should doubt the validity of the COVID test itself.

Floating around out there giving false positives.

There are several cases where I have read of significant numbers of positives, yet no symptoms at all. Enough cases to ask the question- are the tests actually valid? Are we seeing false positive, and/or false negatives in any of these test, and are the initial positives all followed up on two weeks later with additional testing, and/or confirmation of antibodies?

Now we wait for the results...

This story does not fit with anything else I have read. Maybe the tests were defective, maybe the entire symptomatic population had already been tested and removed...or maybe we really don't know what is going on.

Scary as hell.

I think it’s been here since early December.