Nature on The futility of quarantining HEALTHY individuals

More on the futility of quarantining HEALTHY individuals (From the Journal, Nature).

.

Just a caveat. This study comes out of China and may or may not be trustworthy.

The fact that Nature vetted it helps, but is still not certain.

It is clearly newsworthy in and of itself.

.

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China

  • Shiyi Cao,
  • Yong Gan,
  • Chao Wang,
  • Max Bachmann,
  • Shanbo Weil,
  • Jie Gong,
  • Yuchai Huang,
  • Tiantian Wang,
  • Liqing Li,
  • Kai Lu,
  • Heng Jiang,
  • Yanhong Gong,
  • Hongbin Xu,
  • Xin Shen,
  • Qingfeng Tian,
  • Chuanzhu Lv,
  • Fujian Song,
  • Xiaoxv Yin &
  • Zuxun Lu

Nature Communications volume 11 , Article number: 5917 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

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. . . .

.

Discussion

The citywide nucleic acid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan recruited nearly 10 million people, and found no newly confirmed cases with COVID-19. The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.

Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious3, and might subsequently become symptomatic4. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-25. . . . .

“The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.”

This research makes a good case for lockdown.

Nature is not a peer review Journal. This research, now published, is well researched and well written.

2 Likes

If asymptomatic individuals were not infectious post-lockdown, please explain the rationale of your conclusion.

Sure, but first explain this statement. Also explain the purpose and premise of the research.

The title says something about the futility of quarantining healthy individuals, but I didn’t see that conclusion in the abstract. Perhaps you could point to where the article draws that conclusion?

There is no similar statement in the research article. It is a great article on post lockdown covid activity. It really offers no conclusions except to offer the value of these results as guidance on opening the region back up.
For me, these results exemplify the value of such a hard lockdown.

I am puzzled by the title and interpretation by the op, of this research, and have sought some clarification for the title interpretation from the op. I am considering what exactly the op is reading into this research and why the op has chosen that reading of the research.

@Cathoholic, I realized you did give the caveat about trusting chinas numbers…that’s good because I’m pretty sure you have previously stated that we couldn’t trust their numbers at all. Remember when Wuhan was stating zero new infections. Pretty much no one believed that at that time, correct?

I, too, am interested in how you reached your conclusion in your title. Thank you.

That’s right. Maybe Nature has some insight, maybe not.

How I drew my conclusions? I just read the study.

There are no conclusions in the research, it is unique in that respect.
How can you draw a conclusion of

The journal ’ Nature’ is not

not stating that by this research at all.

Please explain how you came to your own opinion that this is the conclusion you can to draw from that research.

Have you linked the wrong research study in this thread to the wrong title. I note you are a regular topic starter and so, may have inadvertantly done this.

I read the study.

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.

Over a thousand people had KNOWN to be “close-contact” exposed to test-positive asymptomatic corona virus patients (300 of them).

They checked ALL close contacts of those people.

There were ZERO infections among them.

How many less CLOSE contacts would you need to draw this conclusion? You are already at zero.

Did you read the study? (I did.)

Based upon this study humilityseeker, how do you think it helps society
to quarantine these known-infected but asymptomatic people, when NOBODY is getting infected from them?

I’ll await your explanation and proceed as indicated.

.

To everybody else. Based upon this study (again with my caveat) . . . If this low infectivity rate (zero is pretty low) is present with KNOWN asymptomatic INFECTED patients, what is the rationale for locking down people who almost certainly are NOT test-positive (and symptom-free) and healthy? (Healthy people in society NOT carrying the virus even in small amounts.)

What is the rationale (given these numbers) of quarantining HEALTHY individuals!??

What is the rationale for quaratining HEALTHY individuals (who are NOT test-positive for corona) if positive (but asymptomatic people) are NOT even passing-on infection?

This might be closer to what you are looking for PattyIT.

Hope it helps.

Of course I read this research, which is why I am asking what I have asked.

Did you accurately read the results?
Did you also accurately read the limitations of this study?

How are you jumping from this research to your title? That is still unclear.

The region was in quarantine/lockdown from January to April.
This was a post lockdown research. It was looking at the extent of Covid that still existed in the community.

Again, there was no follow up on those asymptomatic and their close contacts after the initial quarantine period. This was cited as a big limitation of the study and the authors were very cautious to point this out.

So in effect you conclusion here has no accurate and precise statistical data to draw on in this research. It is simply an opinion.

The authors stated…
‘This study has several limitations that need to be discussed. First, this was a cross-sectional screening programme, and we are unable to assess the changes over time in asymptomatic positive and reoperative results. Second, although a positive result of nucleic acid testing reveals the existence of the viral RNAs, some false negative results were likely to have occurred, in particular due to the relatively low level of virus loads in asymptomatic infected individuals, inadequate collection of samples, and limited accuracy of the testing technology’

In fact the research and the authors support

‘it is too early to be complacent, because of the existence of asymptomatic positive cases and high level of susceptibility in residents in Wuhan. Public health measures for the prevention and control of COVID-19 epidemic, including wearing masks, keeping safe social distancing in Wuhan should be sustained. Especially, vulnerable populations with weakened immunity or co-morbidities, or both, should continue to be appropriately shielded.’

Again, the Journal ‘Nature’ and these research authors at no stage propose a for or against debate for the title you have chosen for this thread.

The bolded statement here that the authors have made is highly significant. It cannot be discounted in an accurate , precise and repeatable statistical mode of research.

You never answered the question.

Here it is again . . . .

Over a thousand people had KNOWN to be “close-contact” exposed to test-positive asymptomatic corona virus patients (300 of them).

They checked ALL close contacts of those people.

There were ZERO infections among them.

How many less CLOSE contacts would you need to draw this conclusion? You are already at zero.

Did you read the study? (I did.)

Based upon this study humilityseeker, how do you think it helps society
to quarantine these known-infected but asymptomatic people, when NOBODY is getting infected from them?

That would work if asymptomatic people automatically turned green and pre-symptomatic people turned purple but other than that it would seem to me that it would need a massive daily testing regime and follow up tracing to know.

This question is not relevant to the research that these scientists have conducted.
The scientists themselves stated one of the limitations was in not retesting after the initial quarantine period.
Another limitation was in the method of testing itself and in the potential for false negatives.
To answer your question in a valid statistical and mathematical way, reflecting accuracy , precision and reliability ( which is the aim of statistics) , further extended testing, over time, would be required.
The aim of this research is not reflected in your premise, title, or in your question at all.

Importantly the researchers have flagged mask wearing and other measures as crucial in controlling the spread of this pandemic.

1 Like

But that’s just their opinion, it wasn’t part of the research, right?

Humilityseeker on 300 people who got Corona virus who were asymptomatic.

These 300 people were studied.

Their close contacts were studied too. Over a thousand of them!

Not just eyeballed but had sophisticated biochemical testing to see if they acquired Corona virus during a quarantining period that they remained in close contact with.

How many close contacts got infected even biochemically?

Zero.

I asked humilityseeker . . . .

Based upon this study humilityseeker, how do you think it helps society
to quarantine these known-infected but asymptomatic people, when NOBODY is getting infected from them?

Bold mine.

Humilityseeker’s response?

The question is irrelevant.

Here is the exact response . . . .

To the readers here. There ya go.
There ya have it played out for you.

Draw your own conclusions.

1 Like

To the readers here.

This quarantining HEALTHY individuals has absolutely no scientific basis. We see it again here in this study.

The risks are not factored in (such as sick people not being able to see their doctors, their doctors afraid to see patients in person, chemo delayed, and a hundred other things that proponents of this IGNORE) for many people wanting to quarantine HEALTHY people. .

These are “feelings-based” decisions. Not intellectual and certainly not scientific.

This will go on as long as you put up with it.

All these “mights”, “maybes”, and “possibilities” about the guy next to you at Wal Mart will be here in five and ten years too.

The exemptions for themselves will continue too (because they know it is phony baloney).

This is WHY I have warned everybody here. . . . That if this is carried out on principle, these people aim to make this (quarantining healthy people, mandated masking-up, social distancing) . . . PERMANENT.

There is no science here or “getting back to normal” with fearful and over-controlling people like that.

To the readers here:

There is no way to be assured that a person is healthy. There is a scientific basis for quarantining individuals who might be infected. That’s the only kind of quarantining that is done (in this nation).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.