So, apparently, a meta study conducted by the University of Florida last year found that:
A total of 54 relevant studies with 77 758 participants reporting household secondary transmission were identified. Estimated household secondary attack rate … from asymptomatic index cases [was] (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)
So, a few people fed up with lockdowns and “scare science” posted on various venues that the study had found no asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread of the virus.
The AP, of course, fact checked this claim and found it to be false:
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. A spokesperson for the Journal of the American Medical Association network of publications denied publishing findings that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, does not spread without symptoms.
Now, on the surface, I’d say that the AP’s “fact check” was technically correct. The study didn’t find definitively that the virus can’t spread from asymptomatic or presymptomatic people. I’ll give them that much.
But what did the study actually find? a .7% rate of asymptomatic spread with an error factor of plus or minus 4.2%.
In other words, the range could be anywhere from -3.5% to 4.9%. They then rounded off the negative to zero because there can’t have been a negative number of cases, but the bottom line is that the result was statistically equal to zero. Well within the margin of error and there is no way statistically to draw any conclusion from the data.
So, had the posts fact checked by the AP said “Study finds NO EVIDENCE of asymptomatic spread” it would have been 100% accurate.
The fact is that most of the information we’ve been getting about the Chinese Virus from the government and government sponsored medical community has been based on speculation and wildly inaccurate computer models, not real data. As the real data is coming out, it almost uniformly does not support the narrative.
We should not be ruled by fear.
This was sparked by a post at Citizen Free Press with a video from Canadian doctors in which the Florida study was cited. I wasn’t familiar with the study and looked it up, leading me to the above post.
The video, in my opinion, is a good perspective on things. It pretty much supports what I’ve been thinking and saying all along, but from a position of experience and with data to back it up. (NOTE: The video below is embedded from Rumble, the one on the CFP site is youtube).