Hey Lockdown Zealots — Should We Follow THIS Science About Asymptomatic Spread?

Written by Wes Walker on December 21, 2020

If you thought the arrival of a vaccine would slow the panic merchants down, you’ve not been paying attention. The more terrified the public is, the more power our elected ‘saviors’ weild over us — such power is addictive.

Not long ago, Little Lord Fauci himself tut-tutted America telling us that vaccines might keep you safe from infection, but won’t keep you from accidentally infecting others.

It’s central to one of the arguments for mask-wearing and massive lockdowns. Keep others safe. You never know if you might be sick and not know it — making other people sick in the process.

Asymptomatic spread was the answer given to the great question: I’m not sick so why should I have to be locked down? Why are we quarantining the healthy? And what possibly could it mean, in any case, to be sick without symptoms? Why are half the PCR-positive tests assigned to people who otherwise seem to be perfectly fine?

All these valid questions came to be answered by this one phrase: asymptomatic spread. You might not feel sick. You might not ever have symptoms from SARS-CoV-2. Still, you could be an even worse super spreader without knowing it, infecting people all around you who will carry it to people who will die from the disease. This was also the moment when, subtly and imperceptibly, we were being asked to think of our fellow citizens not as human beings with dignity and rights but pathogen-carrying disease vectors. We had to be masked, all of us, because we are secretly filthy and unclean: we cannot be allowed to breath near others, so even with a mask we must stay 6 feet away.

(As I type these words, I feel sure that if anyone reads them in ten years, the reader will assume I’m writing fiction or engaged in wild hyperbole. To the future reader: this is all true.)

On June 7, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, told a press conference that from the known research, asymptomatic spread was “very rare.” “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.” She added for emphasis: “It’s very rare.” –AmericanInstituteEconomicResearch

The relative rarity of asymptomatic spread had no bearing on the behavior of our elected officials. They made decisions with all the courage and resolve you might expect from a CYA political culture.

Why not, it’s not their necks in the noose if their advice doesn’t pan out. They’ll still get a paycheck whether there’s a lockdown or not, right?

We’re told to follow the science and trust the experts.

How about a published and peer-reviewed study involving some 10 Million subjects?

… as with most of the “science” throughout this ordeal, it eventually came to be revealed that good sense and rationality would prevail over implausible claims and predictions that led to experiments in social control without any precedent.

In this case, the carrier of rationality is a gigantic study conducted in Wuhan, China, of 10 million people. The article appears in Nature, published November 20, 2020.

…The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.

Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.

One might suppose that this would be huge news. It would allow us to open up everything immediately. With the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns crumbled, we could go back to living a normal life. The fear could evaporate. We could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others. We could take off our masks. We could go to movies and sports events. –AmericanInstituteEconomicResearch

So, all of those moralizing ‘Karens’, and ‘you’re killing grandma’ guilt trips, and the bankruptcies might have been solving a problem that existed only in the imagination of the experts?

Why don’t we all put unlimited confidence in these same experts? Shucks, it’s a real mystery.

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news — subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:

Become a Clash Insider!

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.

Join our MeWe group to get all the ClashDaily goodness.

If you’re still on Facebook, check out our ClashBriefing page.

Stay Rowdy!