Asymptomatic people with Covid are only responsible for a tiny fraction of spread, a study in the Lancet has found, exploding a myth that formed a key part of social distancing policies and fear messaging during the pandemic.
The study, from a team at Imperial College London, is the latest to come out of the human challenge trial, in which 36 people were deliberately infected with SARS-CoV-2 and followed up.
Earlier results from the trial published last year made the surprising finding that only around half (53%) of those who were inoculated with a droplet of infected material in their nose – none of whom had known prior infections or antibodies – went on to test positive for the virus, indicating an unexpected level of immune resistance to the virus.
In the new paper, published in the Lancet Microbe, the researchers report that just 7% of virus emissions occurred before the first reported symptom, indicating that transmission during the presymptomatic phase is responsible for a tiny fraction of overall spread.
This contradicts a claim that was a key part of the case for universal social distancing, lockdown and masking policies, and was used extensively in fear messaging to induce compliance. For instance, numerous U.K. Government posters asserted that “around one in three people with COVID-19 don’t have any symptoms, but can still pass it on”.
The claim also cropped up frequently in the scientific literature, with a 2020 paper in Nature claiming: “Containment of COVID-19 is made difficult because, unlike SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 is commonly spread by people showing no symptoms.”
But it turns out that this central plank of The Science is a myth. Almost all COVID-19 transmission occurs only once symptoms have begun.
Regarding truly asymptomatic infections, the researchers found just one participant (of 18) who had a period of testing positive but reported no symptoms at all. He or she did emit some virus, indicating that spread from people asymptomatic throughout a genuine infection is possible, but makes up only a tiny proportion of total spread.
Interestingly, the researchers also found evidence to support the super-spreader hypothesis, as 86% of total detected airborne virus was generated by just two participants (11%) over three days. With the researchers also finding no relationship between symptom severity and emissions (i.e., those with the worst symptoms didn’t necessarily emit the most virus), the study shows there is still much we don’t understand about viruses.
It is notable that this latest debunking of the official narrative came from Imperial College, with Professor Neil Ferguson himself one of the authors. It seems that sometimes even the arch-lockdowners have to give ground to the truth.
As another official ‘fact’ falls to the ground, please can we stop the censorship of dissent?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is what Dr Mike Yeadon has been banging on about since forever. Yet more evidence, which we on here knew anyway of course, that it was all a massive sham to corral the public into behaving just how the psychopathic social engineers wanted us to. What will it take for the hardcore masktard Covidians to admit defeat and feel like utter fools? Speaking of crimes against humanity, there’s this new paper, which I feel is worthy of scrutiny by the DS team;
”The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor. Our study is a forensic analysis of the 38 trial subjects who died between July 27, 2020, the start of Phase 2/3 of the clinical trial, and March 13, 2021, the data end date of their 6-Month Interim Report. Phase 2/3 of the trial involved 44,060 subjects who were equally distributed into two groups and received Dose 1 of either the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinated or the Placebo control (0.9% normal saline). At Week 20, when the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. FDA, subjects in the placebo arm were given the option to be BNT162b2 vaccinated. All but a few accepted.
Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial. After Week 20, as subjects in the Placebo were unblinded and vaccinated, deaths among this still unvaccinated cohort of this group slowed and eventually plateaued. Deaths in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects continued at the same rate. Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls. This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech. Potential sources of these data inconsistencies are identified.”
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.0131/v1
This is just part of Ferguson/Imperial College/The Lancet’s “defence” that their previous 3 years of Covid B0ll0cks was all just an unfortunate mistake …. and they were doing their best in difficult circumstances.
We’re being played …..
Pants down probably wasn’t on the payroll for this one.
Let me Google that for you…
NMF is Ferguson
What a surprise. Just like all the other Covids, to wit, a branch of “common colds”. Maybe there was a financial opportunity producing that paperwork.
Imperial has produced a few sceptical analyses. Professor David Miles, back in July 20 predicted the costs very accurately & used QALY to demonstrate that we were spending several £m trying to save a few very elderly people a few months of poor quality life.
Which begs the question why do some studies have impact and others don’t?
It seems pretty clear to me that policy makers pick and chose the “science” that fits their preferred, pre-determined policy.
When I hear one of those half wit politicians saying they are following “the science” … well, I better not say what I feel like doing…
By that time, they’d already shut down the country, spaffed millions, and told everyone it was deadly (anyone can get it, remember?) so they simply couldn’t, and never will be able to (at least not the current lot), turn round and admit they got it so wrong. Even if they actually think they did get it wrong, which most of them don’t, and the rest are doing the mental equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la la la la”.
Also by then, even before lockdown was announced, there was already a good, caring side (if it saves one life, do everything it takes, stay the f*ck at home, pot-banging etc) and the evil right-wing side (um, is this really the best way to deal with it?). Just like Brexit, racism/BLM, immigration, EDI, trans, Ukraine, Net Zero and so on, the govt had to be (or be seen to be) on the “right” side.
I’ve not seen that, but surely it wasn’t “several £m” it was hundreds of billions.
I doubt the puppet masters cared about “saving” anyone, they just pretended to.
Finally, there’s no evidence any lives were “saved” (whatever that could possibly mean).
Interesting way round for Neil Ferguson. Publish model results, collect data for model parameters.
I’m afraid I believe NOTHING Imperial College or The Lancet say about anything now.
That applies to this report as well.
When you destroy your credibility by publishing b0ll0cks for years, it remains destroyed.
“I believe NOTHING Imperial College or The Lancet say about anything now.”
My position exactly. They are up to something.
I agree entirely RTSC & Hux and absolutely share your suspicions,. However, if I recall, much of this data (efficient immune response in some, low- and super-spreaders, symptoms not reflecting viral load, no asymptomatic spread, etc etc) reproduces that of the Common Cold Unit back in the day. Viruses will do what viruses do – how they’re weaponised and propagandised is where the problem lies.
It’s no surprise, as the early studies purporting to show asymptomatic spread were uniformly dubious.
I’m sure it will come out in the Covid Enquiry…
Oh definitely.
Oh most definitely, they will get all the answers to the questions they ask, and will avoid the questions which we would like asked.
“36 people were deliberately infected with SARS-CoV-2 and followed up”
Gotta be a small section of the population: people who:
1. wanted to take part in a trial to tell everyone what any thinking person already knew from the very beginning, AND
2. wanted to be be associated with and put themselves under the control of ‘experts’ from Imperial College London AND
3. are not super scared of the DeadliestVirusEver™
Maybe that’s why it was only 36. And they scoured the length and breadth of This Sceptred Isle.
Imperial College London and Pantsdown confirming what most of us have known since the early days – something is going on. What exactly we don’t know but it will become clear within the next few months.
Dr Mike Yeadon was one of the first to state this simple fact – if you haven’t got any symptoms you can’t pass anything on. Right again.
I was thinking the same. It’s not as if they can rewrite history, the evidence contradicting ICL’s predictions is Mt Everest sized now, and Ferguson’s track record was dire enough even before he started modelling for the scamdemic. If my cat sat on a calculator she’d get a more accurate figure regarding predicted deaths then that useless, corrupt dicknerd who’s responsible for serious devastation on multiple levels.
Thanks Mogs
He’s no dicknerd! He is doing his masters bidding and getting very well rewarded. That is not to say that he will not be discarded like a wet cloth when his usefulness has come to an end. He is just a prime example of much of the grifting professional and managetial class, without whom, the whole evil agenda could not flourish as it does.
What kind of training do health professionals get at the moment?
‘As for the possible role of asymptomatic carriers in spreading flu, Bresee commented that symptoms correlate with the amount of virus shed. “So my presumption is that asymptomatic infected people will shed less virus than people who are symptomatic, and therefore will contribute less to community spread,”
March 2014. Joseph Bresee, MD, chief of the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch in the Influenza Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
‘The initial testing showed that they were dealing with a virus which is much smaller than bacteria. This was discovered when samples from infected patients were passed through a very fine filter and yet they still passed on symptoms to another test subject.
Coughs & sneezes spread diseases
The tests looked at how heavy particles produced by sneezes fell quickly to the ground, but small ones lose water by evaporation and could float in the air for an hour or two. They also looked at how the virus spreads and saw that shaking a handkerchief was a very effective germ distributor!’
The first trial at The Common Cold Unit (Harvard Hospital) began on 17th July 1946.
Did they report whether the floating virus remained viable once its containing envelope of moisture had evaporated?
My suspicion is that it dried out and then shrivelled up, and unlike fungus spores which can be reinvigorated by moisture.
A couple of points
1) People don’t “spread” viruses. People carry on their normal daily business as they have since humans have existed.
2) So what if some people “spread” “covid”? Who cares? It arrived everywhere. Everyone has had “it” multiple times, broadly speaking. How can reducing or stopping the “spread” be a logical, practical or desirable objective for a mild virus like covid?
Not me squire. Never knowingly had it and even if I knew I had had it, what difference would it have made.
There is no specific treatment for Covid since ivermectin and similar are forbidden.
So its cold-like symptoms need treating like you would a cold.
Well I suppose I was being loose with language. More or less everyone will have been exposed and either simply not noticed, noticed but carried on regardless, noticed and stayed in bed for a few days or noticed and gone to hospital/died if frail. Put another way, if you were going to be noticeably unwell with it, then it would have happened by now, unless perhaps your immune system takes a big turn for the worse – and even then, you’d have some level of immunity unless of course you’ve been vaxxed in which case good luck…
I’ve been ill with colds and flu things a few times since “covid” so I would assume one or more of those was “covid” but like you I neither know nor care.
That’s because Trisha Greenalgh is less afraid of other people if she at least doesn’t have to see their faces. The notion of stopping the spread is just something that’s supposed to benefit mysophobes psychologically.
Aside: I recently met an aquaintance of mine who told me – with an air of excitement – that she Had COVID !!, just as if nothing had happened since 2020. She’s obviously vaxxed and boosted and boostervaxxed. The interesting bit was that she claimed she had been at home for the last four weeks to Help stop the spread! I saw her in the pub where I usually meet her in an animated discussion with a man two weeks ago. But she’s nevertheless genuinely convinced that she had really stayed at home for the last month, which she actually did except when she didn’t. But as she was supposed to stay at home to Help stop the spread! and COVID is such a terribly serious disease, she immediately forgot that she didn’t really stay home once she had gotten back there. A simply trick everyone’s mind is perfectly capable of: What must not have happened is erased ex post factum.
Scary how people who seem otherwise sane (manage to live independently, tie their own shoelaces etc) behave and think like complete loonies when it comes to covid.
That’s because they’ve literally been programmed to: Mention COVID. Eh voilà — the mind produces all the COVID memories, ie, all this stuff from the posters and the daily COVID soap on telly.
There’s a Sherlock Holme story where Watson describes his astonishment when he learns that his friend is unaware that the earth revolves around the sun. To this, Holmes reacts with Now that I’ve involuntary learnt this, I shall do my best to forget it immediately as this fact is of now conceivable use to me. followed by a short lecture why its unwise to store all kinds of random crap in one’s mind as this takes away space which could be used to store something useful instead and that’s a very apt observation how this actually works: If one just sits there an passivley absorbs the story, it becomes part of one’s own memory and the brain will reproduce it whenver it seem useful, ie, the topic comes up.
Positive bit of the story: She didn’t seem personally convinced that COVID was really that serious, despite parts of he mind still clung to the official story. She also asked me if I was vaccinated to which I replied with an absolutely natural No. Why? This will hopefully have helped to demolish the edifice somewhat.
Indeed. Almost everyone I know thought the lockdowns were necessary/justified, got vaxxed, followed the rules (most of the time, except when they didn’t in which case they broke the rules “sensibly”). I think one or two of the more hypochondriac ones were actually worried, most seemed profoundly unworried by covid – but they went along with it all anyway.
“Earlier results from the trial published last year made the surprising finding that only around half (53%) of those who were inoculated with a droplet of infected material in their nose – none of whom had known prior infections or antibodies – went on to test positive for the virus, indicating an unexpected level of immune resistance to the virus.”
Wny TF is this STILL surprising to anyone, let alone supposed scientists? Did they not discover exactly the same thing many decades ago at the common cold research institute? Don’t we see this fact borne out constantly in everyday life? Have they never heard of the innate immune system, cross immunity, T cells?
Rhetorical questions, sigh.
Notwithstanding the inconvenient fact that finding a virus (or fragment) in your snoz does not make a ‘case’ of infection. Our noses are our filters
Nor does the logic that a blood-borne jab (aka profitable toxin) should have no impact on your mucosal immune system.
I’m (obviously) unqualified medically but I do feel that terrain theory is more plausible. If we’re all equally susceptible, why was my coof-infection little more than a strange taste while my partner had a rough fortnight. I’ve not been ill for 2+ years now, I’m still mixing with plenty of people, except without a daily commute on the tube.
My view, if you’re sneezing and sniffing then just stay home, don’t be a martyr and perhaps don’t visit granny just yet. Otherwise continue to challenge your immune system, if you’re never exposed to anything then the first real challenge you receive will knock you flat.
Excessive sanitising at home leads to allergies, lockdowns prevented kids from mixing leading to concerns about RSV afterwards – I say let your kids play in the mud.
PS, seeing those horrible posters again brought it all back for a moment. Never again!
I know, horrible.
I believe in viruses but also terrain, I think the two interact. Of course some people are going to be more susceptible than others depending on age, state of health, previous exposure, genetic immune system differences and so on. Surely the best thing to do is to keep up constant exposure to everyday respiratory viruses, that way you are never “out of date”, will usually have whatever it is fairly mildly, and will also have developed some good cross immunity for the next “new” thing.
Imagine it’s original SARS next. Presumably having had covid would provide some immunity. People would be thanking their lucky stars that they had “only” had covid and are now less susceptible to SARS.
The lie already started at an earlier position, namely, at the Don’t accidentally spread it!, Stay home to save lives!, You could be spreading it!, […] people […] are spreading it. all implying that – on its own – Sars-CoV2 is inert and dependent on movement and directed actions of people to spread (who are thus culpably responsible for this spread). As demonstrated by the case of the Pacific island state where people got COVID after a plane had landed despite all passengers had repeatedly tested negative, these viruses are really transported by air movements, possibly over long distance, and enter and exit people’s bodies on their own, with them being absolutely incapable of either knowing or preventing that.
Bang on. We humans just live, alongside viruses (for those who believe viruses exist, which I suppose I do). This whole business of demonising humans for simply living is monstrous and must not be conceded, but must be resisted. We must not debate on the terms dictated by the enemy.
I’ll be interested in Profs Heneghan and Jefferson’s comments on this. About a year ago they muddied the waters somewhat on the issue of asymptomatic spread when they reported their finding that immune compromised and elderly persons could after all spread covid without themselves having symptoms, and not just in the last few hours before developing symptoms; they could remain infectious for weeks without developing symptoms.
Respiratory viruses are viruses that are adapted to using the body’s immune response for successful transmission, instead of other routes used by other viruses.
An infection prompts, among other things: nasal discharge/nose blowing, sneezing, coughing (aka symptoms) to produce airborne viral aerosols.
Therefore aerosols cannot successfully be produced prior to symptoms appearing.
Since it can take around 24 hours before first symptoms occur, it used to be accepted – prior to March 2020 – that an infected person was not infectious until about after 24 hours, and was only infectious whilst viral reproduction was in process, about 48 to 72 hours after symptoms first appear.
It is why masking, isolation and testing were a waste of time. Masks cannot stop sneezing, coughing, nose blowing and thus aerosol spread, nor can they exclude air-laden aerosols, and by the time symptoms appear, testing is done, results back – the infectious phase is over or nearly over and isolation is closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Thing is, even if asymptomatic spread was the dominant form of transmission, the lockdowns would still have remained unjustified, as asymptomatic transmission would make lockdowns that much MORE futile to contain it. The “therapeutic window” for lockdowns has always been closed regardless.
I expect Professor Ferguson will now tour broadcast media and give interviews to print media explaining how Sunetra Gupta was correct in her interpretation of the data available early in 2020 and he was very wrong. Then to be followed by giving the same evidence to the COVID inquiry.
I fear you’re misinterpreting that. 7% so-called asymptomatic transmission can be made more snappy by calling it almost one in ten which means whole population lockdown is about as efficient wrt preventing transmission (based on the assumption that lockdowns do actually prevent transmission which they don’t) as masks were claimed to be. Because of this, I think this is part of the Our stuff is proven to work!-campaign whose output is indeed intended to become input to the COVID inquiry.
I was thinking more of the finding there was 50% pre-existing immunity.
Look into my eyes and tell me I’m not an irresponsible lard arse…
the biggest scam since the Salem witch hunts …
the most stupid time in human history watch idiocracy the movie to see how stupid the world is now ..