Coronavirus can be spread by people who don’t show symptoms, US CDC warns

Coronavirus can be spread by people who don’t show symptoms, US CDC warns, by Jackie Salo.

Coronavirus can be spread through people who aren’t exhibiting symptoms of the illness, the director of the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention said Thursday.

Dr. Robert Redfield confirmed reports out of China that the virus can spread when the person is still asymptomatic, according to CNN.

How it spreads: Wuhan virus in Hawaii? By Lion of the Blogosphere.

Let’s examine the timeline:

  • January 28: Japanese man arrives in Hawaii.
  • January 31: Trump orders travel ban for anyone who had been in China during the previous 14 days.
  • February 3: Japanese man first had cold symptoms.
  • February 7: Man returns to Japan.
  • February 8: Japanese man visits doctor with 38C (100.4) fever.
  • February 10: Japanese man visited hospital and had signs of pneumonia.
  • February 13: Japanese man is hospitalized.
  • February 14: Japanese man tests positive for the Wuhan virus.

Given that virus symptoms usually take 6 days or less to first appear, and assuming his “cold” was the first symptom, it’s most likely that the Japanese tourist caught the virus in Hawaii and he did not bring it with him from Japan.

Approximately 15,000 Chinese tourists visit Hawaii each month, and the visit of the Japanese man happened just before the travel ban.

I believe it’s highly likely that the Japanese man caught the virus, either directly or indirectly, from a Chinese tourist who was also in Hawaii. The Japanese man’s vacation happened before the travel ban would have prevented Chinese tourists from also being in Hawaii.

If only we had instituted the Chinese travel ban a week earlier.

Notice how the Japanese man went for several days without symptoms, or only mild cold-like symptoms, during which time he may have been spreading it.

How much coronavirus is there in the West? No one knows. And Chinese students are side-stepping the travel ban from China by going via a third country. Duh.

The globalist/PC line is that put out by China and their puppet at the WHO: travel bans and quarantines don’t work. Obliviously they work, if in place early enough.

Which is cheaper?

  • Making everyone who comes into Australia by any means go into two weeks quarantine at a remote location. Cost: accommodation, time lost, and most journeys are postponed or cancelled. No deaths.
  • Allowing people who come by air into the Australian population, then putting all those who get severely sick into intensive care in hospitals. Cost: A day at an ICU costs $5,000 per day, and the number of ICUs is geared to the normal ‘flu season and other emergencies — that is, there won’t be nearly enough of them. Crash-build many more ICUs. Possibly lots of deaths.

Joanne Nova:

We could start building emergency hospital ICU rooms like China has, or we could start building quarantine cabins which are infinitely cheaper and ask all entrants from countries with uncontrolled cases of Covid 19 (or SARS CoV 2, whatever it is called) to go through a two week quarantine. This will limit traffic drastically, affecting weddings, conferences, holidays and all kinds of business. It will be costly and inconvenient, but it will possibly save people and quite a lot of money. (ICU care is $5000 a day). Separated families can still be reunited after the two week delay. Am I mad, stopping all flights to nations at risk seems like the cheap conservative option?

Our hospital system is designed to cope with the annual flu load, even if this only doubles it, it will be onerous. If 10% of cases need major hospital help (as we see in the cases in Hong Kong and Singapore) the system will be overwhelmed.

I repeat, now that we know this is very infectious the best case scenario is that the virus causes thousands of undetected low grade infections, and that for some reason it is not as severe in the West (genes, pollution, medical care, lower population density, summer, past infection immunity, etc). Perhaps it blows over and we can look back and say “hyped”. We’ll know a lot more in a few weeks time. Are three weeks worth of weddings and conferences really worth the risk?