The latest WHO assessments of the transmissibility of SARS-Cov-2 by asymptomatic patients appear highly controversial. It could be yet another communicative and scientific error during the pandemic. What is your opinion on this?
Hi
According to WHO, asymptomatic coronavirous spread is still unknown.
The spread of Covid-19 has been so rapid that I believe that spread by minimally symptomatic people infected by SARS-CoV-2 must be possible. Can any one infected with a novel respiratory tract virus be truly asymptomatic? I do not think so. However, I suspect many people with minimal symptoms from Covid-19 were wandering around thinking that they had a simple 'cold' or 'flu'.
There are rare chances of spread by asymptomatic corona positive cases as they are totally free of symptoms, but corona virus may spread through breath or through talking also, but chances are very less.
A point of discussion may be this: before becoming symptomatic, a patient spends days in which he is non-symptomatic or pauci-symptomatic! Is the distinction between the various phases so clear? I do not think so! The transition from an asymptomatic to symptomatic clinical picture is more likely to be a continuum of variables
Cases of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive have not yet been thoroughly studied. The possibility that a considerable part of the diffusion is due to them is credited by studies on mathematical models and analyzes on closed communities (e.g. Vo case in Italy).Unfortunately, the WHO scientific committee has shown poor reliability during the current pandemic.#Md.Kudrat-E- Zahan
Quoting WHO, It appears that asymptomatic individuals may have less low risk of transmuting infection onward to a secondary individual,. In fact, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.” !!
In the absence of scientific data, anyone who goes beyond imposing the spacing rules, the use of the mask and individual hygiene and the tracking of the infected and the use of the lock-down, can say idiotic and wrong things.
The problem is that we have no data on the progression of the entire disease, from the first moment of infection to the striking and serious ultimate stages. Viral infection is a molecular disease, determined by RNA molecules introduced through a molecular nano-machine that turn RNA into a small group of proteins.
We know well how the virus attaches to human cells, but what do we know about how the virus uses the host's metabolic machinery? Nothing. What do we know about the molecular actions that the virus does to take control of human defenses? Nothing. The virus can easily get its host to translate and synthesize the viral genome and it uses many proteins for the synthesis, formation and release of virions but there are few proteins not involved in this process. Do we know what they do? No.
We have no knowledge covering critical stages of viral progression until it explodes into a disease so severe that it needs to be hospitalized. We have data on this ultimate phase, but we do not know what they mean because we do not know if their origin is viral or human. We only can define the seriousness of the situation, nothing else. So we just contain the symptoms without being able to cure the disease. Knowing that the d-dimer or IL-6 are elevated tell me something about how the virus induced this phenomenon? No. Only hypotheses. It could be an action under the total viral control or an exacerbated defensive response of the organism. Can anyone give a coherent answer? No.
It is as if our country was attacked by an enemy army whose weapons we do not know, how many people the army is made up of, which side it comes from. We limit ourselves only to assisting the wounded and cleaning up the rubble, without defending ourselves.
We must answer these questions. The answer will take a long time but, unfortunately, it does not matter to those looking for immediate gains with vaccine or drugs already used for other diseases. The world is also this.
greetings
I read your answers with interest, but my confidence in NEJM is greater than that placed in WHO. Too many mistakes have been made .
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe2009758?articleTools=true
Matteo Nioi please note that even the NEJM can be wrong:
N Engl J Med 2020; 382:2582 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2021225
Let me disagree.
Until now, the scientific world has focused on Pandemic Control, Epidemiologic evaluation, Spread control, Symptom-based approaches but all these are not synonymous with cure.
At this stage, the big pharmaceutical companies looking for big profits drove the scientific world. There was no search for truth that does not live in epidemiology or in how to deal with the various and dangerous symptoms.
The virus is fought only by knowing its molecular mechanisms that will allow you to design targeted drugs. I have many concerns about the vaccine because up to now it has never been possible for many viruses (including coronaviruses) to prepare an effective, long-lasting, and side-effect-free vaccine.
Greetings
Everyone is free to disagree. To date, in addition to the infections, we count about 35,000 deaths. I agree on the need for more knowledge, however, the fact that for many viruses a vaccine cannot be made does not mean that this is also the case. It is a struggle against time, unfortunately we will not know the virus thoroughly (and we will not be able to use targeted drugs) before the winter, the tests on outgoing vaccines have started and some hope of being able to limit a second wave following this strategy exists ....
Unlike the WHO, which still does not admit its faults, the NEJM, as a major newspaper, goes back and if it considers withdrawing the articles. It is not a race for those who are better, it is only a matter of personal trust. And personally from NEJM from 1 to 100 I trust 65. From the WHO from 1 to 100 I trust 10 ... The management of the crisis has completely discredited them.