Does the assumption that there are “symptom-free transmissions”make you suspicious?
Background journalism instead of court reporting. Independent. Uncomfortable. Incorruptible.
Updated: May 1 by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger Klartext
Hygiene terror against the entire population stands or falls with the assumption that there are “symptom-free transmissions” in abundance: Without the slightest complaint, we could pass the Covid-19 pathogen on without a clue. So we are all suspicious, anytime and anywhere, as potential virus spreaders – as silent spreaders. As a result, everyone has to take part in the prescribed draconian infection protection. Right?
She is a crystal clear Covid high-risk patient, my 87-year-old mother. Zero movements; she is in a wheelchair. The meals in their nursing home – mostly dead-boiled, warmed-up canteen food – are more deadly than food. On top of that, she swallows four high-dose, side-effect drugs against three chronic severe diseases. Mentally, too, she couldn’t be any worse: While her nursing home was transformed into a prison from the first lockdown, she became even less contact-less, more depressed, and more hopeless. All of this weakens your immune system. The next cold could kill her.
I’ll take that into account, of course. Always have. At the slightest sign of a cold, I refrain from visiting her. Washing hands is the very first thing I do after entering her room, especially in the flu season.
And suddenly, that is no longer enough? Even if I am completely symptom-free, should I not stay longer than an hour, always wear an FFP2 mask, keep a distance of two meters, accept separating discs, treat my skin with disinfectants? On top of that, I have to prove a negative corona test, not older than 48 hours – and soon a “voluntary” vaccination. However, my mother herself has already had a double vaccination. How come?
Drosten’s Webasto disgrace: did our epidemiologists find out about it?
To popularize the idea of the “asymptomatic transmission” of the new coronavirus in Germany, a single, poorly documented case study was sufficient. It wasn’t a controlled study. An informal “letter to the editor” from the New England Journal of Medicine was adequate. The virological demigod of the nation, Christian Drosten, submitted it on January 30, 2020, together with 16 colleagues.
The day before, the automotive supplier Webasto had closed its headquarters in Stockdorf near Munich after PCR tests had turned out positive for some employees – Germany’s first official “infections” with SARS-CoV-2. A Chinese business traveler apparently brought in the virus from Shanghai, although she allegedly did not show any symptoms herself. On January 20 and 21, she visited Webasto. The first employee she infected said she had sat in a meeting with the guest from China for about an hour. The woman made a healthy impression on him, he reports. “There was a short handshake, but the colleague wasn’t sick either. Well, I didn’t see that she sniffed and coughed in any way or had any symptoms of illness. For me, she was completely healthy. “The meeting took place on a Monday. On the following Friday, the man then felt the first symptoms, a sore throat. The next day he got a fever. By February 11, PCR tests by 15 other employees were positive.
The fact that the Webasto guest from the Far East has been used for scaremongering to this day sheds significant light on how evidence-based rulers make decisions and the leading media educate the population. The light figure of the hygiene regime, its confused chief soufflé, it issues a certificate of poverty. With their understanding of Science, Drosten and his co-authors could apparently easily agree that they never considered it necessary to speak to the businesswoman herself; instead, they relied on the assessment of four Webasto employees. “During her stay (in Germany),” so Drosten insisted, “she was healthy and had no signs or symptoms of infection, but fell ill on the return flight to China, where she positive for 2019-nCoV on January 26 has been tested. “
That was not true, as it became clear four days after the Drosten publication. As a Berlin correspondent for the science magazine Science reported on February 3, employees of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Bavarian State Office for Health and Food Safety telephoned the patient from Shanghai afterward. It turned out that she was already experiencing symptoms while she was in Germany. She felt tired; her muscles ached. To lower her fever, she took paracetamol. At least, that’s what the science journalist learned from an RKI spokesman.
When asked about it, Drosten admitted: “I feel bad about how it went, but I don’t think anyone is to blame here. Apparently, the woman could not be reached at first, and one had the feeling that this had to be communicated quickly. “However, Drosten did not feel bad enough to withdraw his fatal letter to the editor of January 30 or at least to correct the crucial point he wrote “Updates” in the letter on February 6 and March 5. But to this day, it says that the Chinese woman was still “doing well, with no signs or symptoms of infection” during her stay in Germany.
Who did Drosten’s meek, half-hearted denial reach? Would Merkel & Co. have wanted to hear it if their favorite advisor had admitted it to them? No, because the refuted case study was a perfect fit for the political agenda. So it can continue to circulate to this day, mainly as more and more researchers spoke up who presented further alleged evidence of how real the specter of the “silent carrier” was. Since then, editors have been painting it on the disinfected wall, penetrating and full of dedication.
Scant evidence
A team of 25 experts, dispatched by the WHO, collected alleged evidence on-site, in the country of origin of the pandemic, from February 16 to 24, 2020. It failed to conduct its own research in Wuhan’s clinics and practices. Instead, it parroted what Chinese health authorities were doing to it.
The team members could have stayed at home for this; they would have had to grab reading glasses. Because from March, China flooded the trade press with papers that emphasized the silent carrier horror. Four of them (1), plus one from South Korea (2), evaluated the McGill University in Montreal, Canada, in autumn 2020. (3) They unanimously warned that asymptomatic infections are far more common than feared. Taken together, they recorded 13 asymptomatic index patients. With them, 96 contact persons could be tracked down and tested. After all, almost one in five, 18.8%, turned out to test positive.
Quotas, some of which were even more dramatic, were spread by three other works, also from China. (4)
Under the impression of this supposed evidence, the WHO saw itself compelled to sound the alarm at the end of February 2020. The “early data from China suggested that people without symptoms can infect others”. (5)
The CDC soon followed suit. On April 1, 2020, it published a report stating that “in order to control the pandemic, it may not be sufficient that only people with symptoms limit their contact with others because people without symptoms could transmit the infection.” In May, the CDC disseminated an estimate that according to which up to 40 percent of coronavirus transmissions from person to a person take place before those involved show any symptoms.
To this day, the CDC has primarily drawn from sources in the Middle Kingdom. In January 2021, she warned in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that 59% of SARS-CoV-2 were transmitted asymptomatically. (6) In doing so, the authority does not rely on its own research; it simply summarizes figures from eight Chinese studies. To this day, it has not moved a millimeter away from its short circuits. On the contrary: In the meantime, she recommends “all people over two years of age should wear a mask in public and in the presence of people outside the household” – or perhaps better two on top of each other, an option that is currently being seriously examined.
But strangely enough, hardly any scientist could convincingly confirm asymptomatic transmissions to any significant extent outside of China. An extensive study by South Korea’s epidemic protection authority KCDC gave the reason for the all-clear in April 2020. (7) On March 8, a SARS-CoV-2 case was detected in a 19-storey building with offices and apartments in the middle of the capital Seoul. A day later, the entire building was closed. All 922 employees, 203 residents, and 20 visitors from the previous three weeks had to undergo PCR tests. (The worst affected was a call center with 216 employees spread over four floors; almost one in two seemed infected.) Then, regardless of the test result, everyone had to go into quarantine at home for two weeks.
97 tested positive. What “secondary infection rate” did you take care of in the following 14 days at home, among the total of 225 flatmates with whom you lived around the clock?
The vast majority, namely 89, already had Covid 19 symptoms. There were 34 “cases” among their household members.
What about the 11 flatmates out of four consistently symptom-free? NOTA SINGLE “got infected”.
And how dangerous were another four pre-symptomatic who only developed complaints after the start of the quarantine? Even among her four contacts at home, the infection rate remained at ZERO.
This fits in with what a group of medical professionals reported in the CDC magazine Emerging Infectious Diseases in August 2020 about a meeting they held in Munich from February 20 to 21. A participant, who later developed quite severe symptoms of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, apparently infected eleven of the 13 other people there, still “pre-symptomatic”. Research revealed: The transmission must have come from direct physical contact, by shaking hands and quarter to half-hour face-to-face contacts during conversations during breaks and meals together. Had aerosols tipped the balance, it would remain a mystery why two participants were spared, even though they sat at the table for almost ten hours in a relatively small conference room of around 70 square meters.
Fundamental objections leave the RKI cold.
There are four fundamental objections that panic-causing studies have to face:
First: Like all risks to life, infections from apparently very healthy people can never be completely ruled out. The decisive factor is how likely they are. The lower the risk, the more disproportionate, the more irrational hyperactive epidemic protection becomes. Lightning can strike each of us; a meteorite can kill; we can crash in an airplane, have a fatal accident on the way to work, break our necks in the shower, be hit by a stray bullet from a hunter while walking in the woods. Should we, therefore, take comprehensive security precautions? In March 2020, Chinese scientists buttoned no fewer than 4,950 people with “close contacts” to 347 test positives. Among these 4,950, there was “only one person who became infected in an asymptomatic case.” This indicates a “limited transmission capacity.” Not limited enough?
Second: The fact that someone is test-positive AFTER contact with a symptom-free person in no way proves that they were, THEREFORE. Immediately before or after, he got too close to sick people from whom he picked up the virus.
Third: The commonly used PCR tests are not suitable for detecting infections. Aside from government advisors, mainstream journalists, and judges, this is now clear to most experts. Alleged “asymptomatic transmissions” could simply be false-positive test results. (8) Researchers who ignore it embarrass themselves as impressively as the “Covid-19 Response Team” of the notorious alarmist Imperial College: After 2,343 PCR tests in the Venice region, it found no less than two cases of citizens who were copying them Contacts with symptom-free people were “positive”.
It is possible that “silent transmitters” are just passing on a few harmless genome snippets or viruses in harmlessly small numbers. If you are unlucky, a single SARS-CoV-2 virion on your mucous membrane turns it into a PCR-confirmed “case” if a smear catches it. But at least 300 virus particles, if not over a thousand (9), are required to cause infection. To be able to detect them at all, a hypersensitive molecular process first has to “amplify” them several million times. “Infectiousness”, explains the doctor Wolfgang Wodarg, “is not to be assumed as long as only viruses scurry over the mucous membranes (…) as a well-known virological entertainer once aptly put it in 2014.”
Fourth: In truth, there are no Covid-19-specific symptoms. Therefore, no one turns out to be a Covid patient if they occur after he has come close to a symptom-free. Anyone who coughs, sneezes, has a fever, weakens, tastes or smells nothing anymore, could also have caught the flu or have a bad cold.
This is the problem with a much-cited study from Brunei. (10) She reports on a 13-year-old girl who allegedly “transmitted” SARS-CoV-2 to her class teacher without symptoms – because she “had a slight cough in one day”. In a second case, a 30-year-old father was suspected of being a “silent vector” after his wife briefly had a runny nose and her ten-month-old baby coughed lightly for a day but remained fever-free. (11) Can you only pick up Covid-19 in Corona times?
The Robert Koch Institute remains indifferent to such concerns. To this day, the assertion has risen to the point that “a relevant proportion of people are infected within 1-2 days of the onset of symptoms in infectious people”. (12) As evidence, it cites two paltry sources. The first, a dusty analysis from March 2020, summarizes early data from China and Singapore. The second, a study by the University of Michigan published in January 2021, curiously does not deal in the least with symptom-free transmission; it focuses on 325 patients, all of whom had already developed symptoms.
Why are we being bullied outside and inside? The study from Singapore, on which the RKI refers, found evidence of pre-symptomatic spread in a church, a singing school, and marital homes. (13) Do we have to be afraid of worshipers on the church forecourt because of this? Before choirs performing outdoors? In front of married couples while they get some fresh air?
The CDC worries an investigation into a nursing home in King County, Washington, where Covid-19 cases were on the rise, despite the fact that visits were banned and all residents with symptoms of the disease were isolated. In homes, inmates spend a lot of time together in closed rooms. What do hypothetical transmissions mean about the risk of infection in pedestrian zones, stadiums, markets, bus stops, lakeside shores, and beaches?
How “relevant” is the risk of infection emanating from healthy people? The RKI is silent about this. Why did the institute not recommend extensive AHA harassment for Hinz and Kunz long before 2020? The fact that Covid-19 is far more deadly than any previous pandemic is still awaiting statistical evidence – at least one that is unfrozen.
Overdue U-turn – it’s just that nobody takes notice.
As early as the early summer of 2020, at least the WHO saw itself forced to roll backward. Leading media were silent about it. As US epidemiologist Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, technical director of a coronavirus department of the WHO, said during a press conference in Geneva on June 8 that the spread by asymptomatic patients was hardly worth mentioning. “From the data we have, it still seems rare that one asymptomatic person actually transfers to a second individual. (…) We have a number of reports from countries that are doing very detailed contact tracing, “continued Van Kerkhove.” They are tracing asymptomatic cases. You keep track of the contacts. And they don’t find any secondary transmission. It is very rare. “(14)
Yet “very rare” may still be exaggerated, as suggested by a remarkable but hushed-up mega-study from Wuhan, the epicenter of the pandemic. From January 23 to April 8, 2020, the metropolis was lockdown of unsurpassable severity. Comprehensive screening for SARS-CoV-2 took place there: Between May 14 and June 1, all city residents over six years of age were asked to perform PCR tests. 92.9% of them, a total of 9,899,828 people, took part. What was the result?
The findings of the 19-person research team: They “could not identify any new symptomatic cases” – and only “300 asymptomatic cases”, which corresponds to an incidence of 0.303 out of 10,000. “In 1,174 close contacts” of these 300 cases, “there was NO positive test” – NOT SINGLE. Accordingly, “there was NO evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious.”
It couldn’t be more clear.
“A bad joke”
But don’t virological studies prove that the “viral load” of SARS-CoV-2 carriers, even if they do not yet show any signs of illness, can already be as high as in patients with pronounced Covid-19 symptoms? Suspected experts assure us that this is particularly the case towards the end of the so-called “pre-symptomatic phase”, shortly before the first symptoms set in. (15)
The well-known Swiss immunologist Beda Stadler quickly pissed off such gurgles about healthy people who infect other healthy people unsuspectingly. The professor emeritus and former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern urgently recommends “to be aware of what is going on there. If viruses are from anywhere in the body, including in the throat, it means that human cells perish. When cells die, the immune system is immediately alerted, and inflammation develops. One of the five cardinal symptoms of inflammation is pain. It is understandable that suffering Covid 19 patients can no longer remember the initial scratchy throat and then claim that they had no symptoms a few days ago. To turn it as a doctor or virologist into a story of ‘healthy’ sick people that caused panic and was often a reason for stricter lockdown measures is a bad joke. “
Are we crawling deep into each other’s nasal cavity and throat?
What do we care about viral loads that cotton swabs first have to dab deep in our nasal cavity and throat? After all, we don’t crawl four to six inches into orifices when we make contact. Not even the most passionate French kiss is that invasive. Apart from cuddling lovers, we usually keep at least half an arm’s length away when we walk past each other in the pedestrian zone, stand in line at the checkout or crouch next to each other in the stadium. Even when we face each other face-to-face during a conversation, we don’t do it nose to nose, but generally with a distance of at least half a meter. If we infect one another, it is primarily through the air we breathe, which mainly escapes from the mouth.
Shouldn’t the hygiene state first and foremost look for the risk of infection in these aerosols? Why doesn’t it let us measure the number of killer germs we exhale?
At least the Belgian research center Imec is working on a new type of corona test that identifies virus particles in breath samples. The device consists of a sample collector and an analysis unit. Leuven University Hospital helps with clinical validation. A working prototype, which supposedly recognizes positive cases within five minutes, will be tested at Brussels Airport by next summer. The catch: like all previous PCR tests, the Imec invention also reacts to specific RNA sequences; it does not “know” whether these sequences belong to an active pathogen – or whether it is debris from an infection that has already been overcome. (Such viral residues remain in the body for up to three months before they are completely excreted.)
The device also measures what is still in our oral cavity – the test person inserts the device head into this. But no other person ever enters the interior space between our lips, palate and cheeks. At most, if the distance is too short and the wind direction is too close, it dips for a short while into a highly diluted residual cloud of breathable air that has already left our mouth to dissolve outside in a matter of seconds.
Anyone who finds such a residual risk worrying might as well prescribe a gas mask for all pedestrians. Wouldn’t they be poisoned by the worst if they stuck their noses in the exhaust of passing cars?
How many killer germs do we breathe out?
As doctors at the Chinese University of Chongqing have said, amazingly, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers excrete viruses over a more extended period of time than those who are visibly ill, namely 19 days.
But how bad would that be? At least in asymptomatic patients, a realistic test will hardly find amounts of germs that give cause for concern. A significant amount of viruses only get outside from our body when we cough up, sneeze out or smear them on our hands while we blow them into our handkerchiefs – that is, exactly when we are already showing symptoms of the disease. What we give outside beforehand is hardly worth mentioning from an infectious point of view.
This is made abundantly clear by a study published by a team of 14 researchers from the University of Hong Kong in April 2020 in the renowned science magazine Nature. 246 patients who were in a Hong Kong clinic with respiratory diseases caused by rhino, influenza or coronaviruses took part. The researchers wanted to find out how virus-contaminated the air was that the sick breathed out. They verified this mainly utilizing PCR, partly also by growing in cell cultures.
A G-II bioaerosol collector was used to collect particles from the air we breathe (16) – for 30 minutes per test person. In this device, an “impactor,” a particle measuring device, automatically caught coarser particles with a size of over 5 micrometers – (thousandths of a millimeter – so-called “respiratory droplets.” Remaining finer particles, “aerosols,” condensed in them and collected in a solution.
The viral infection of the upper respiratory tract was “florid,,” i.e., fully developed, in all subjects; the nasal secretion had concentrations of 10 to the power of 7-8 virus copies per sample, the throat secretions around 10 to the power of 4 virus copies per sample. Nevertheless, the exhaled air contained hardly any pathogens: virus-containing droplets were only detectable in 18 out of 65 samples taken, virus-containing aerosols in only 31 out of 67 samples.
That means? Even those who are acutely infected with the respiratory tract do not have to be “virus spreaders”. In addition: those few samples in which viruses were detected at all showed an extremely low virus concentration. This is all the more remarkable as an impactor collects particles far more efficiently than a human nose. In addition, encounters in public space only rarely consist of half an hour lingering face to face, less than a meter away from each other. Even on overcrowded buses, trains, and subways, passengers tend to turn away from each other; at least, they can almost always if they value it.
For the medical professor Ines Kappstein, head of the hygiene department at the Passau Clinic, the results of the Hong Kong study allow only one conclusion: “The risk of coming into contact with excreted viruses from other people (..) is probably negligible if you don’t cough directly becomes, a situation that most people have hardly ever really experienced in shops or local public transport. “
Doesn’t contact duration matter?
Why don’t corona ordinances consider how long we have to exchange aerosols with one another before something infectiously questionable can arise from it?
An early study from the Chinese province of Hefei shows how crucial this point is. (17) As of January 23, she recorded all contacts of a young man who had returned from Wuhan four days earlier. On the evening of his arrival, he had visited his 16-year-old cousin, and on January 21, met 15 former classmates. Until then, he assured me, he had had no complaints whatsoever, nor had anyone he met noticed any Covid 19 symptoms on him. It was not until noon on January 22 that his eyes began to itch, and a fever developed. Nevertheless, eight contact persons, i.e., half, were found to be “positive” in PCR tests.
The study mentions the crux of the matter in passing: The contacts had lasted several hours, and they did not occur in the fresh air but indoors.
Like Ines Kappstein, Julian Tang is also a mystery, so the aspect of exposure duration is largely ignored. Presumably, as the virologist from the British University of Leicester points out, individual breaths only release a negligibly small number of viruses. Only “if you stand next to [someone who is infected] and shares the same air with them for 45 minutes could you breathe out enough virus to cause an infection” in closed, unventilated rooms.
Capturing low-concentration aerosols, which could gradually build up into an infectious dose with the right combination of airflow, humidity, and temperature, is “extremely difficult,” says Lidia Morawska, an aerosol researcher at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. Especially in the open air.
Which people in the Robert Koch Institute, in the health and interior ministries of the federal and state governments, prevent our politicians from hearing about such objections? “Are we being ruled by idiots?” Asks Focus columnist Jan Fleischhauer meanwhile. The journalist Boris Reitschuster experiences “stammering instead of competence” almost every day at federal press conferences in Berlin.
What prevents journalists in the leading media from exposing apparent inability, research disparity, stubbornness, political blind flights? What is preventing courts from considering scientific findings despite a lack of political correctness instead of degrading themselves idly or self-consciously to a tool of the executive? Wouldn’t our paralytic federal constitutional judge, in front of whose narrowed eyes an out-of-hand executive trampling on fundamental rights for about a year without need, would meanwhile not be a case for the protection of the constitution?
Furthermore, they all seem to make sense: There is no alternative to hygiene terror, even against healthy people: it is essential to prevent them from infecting other healthy people, who then mostly remain healthy.
How do we want to live?
The debate about “silent vectors” suffers from too much virology and too little philosophy. Is the unlikely, the slightest residual risk unacceptable, less than complete control insufficient, absolute security worth striving for? Anyone who affirms this reveals a deeply disturbing relationship to freedom and personal responsibility, yes to life itself. To be in control of ourselves includes preceding the all-around protection of an omnipresent pro-and provident state. The more security it is supposed to guarantee, the more closely it monitors and rules, threatens, and punishes. Self-determination also means not letting anyone else decide which personal risks to take. At least that’s how we keep it with gluttony and snacking, with smoking and drinking, with physical exercise and extreme sports, with sunbathing and contraception. Why should we change our approach to infection control since February 2020 when it applies to a virus that is not significantly more contagious, pathogenic, or deadly than influenza?
Those who fear the presence of healthy people in panic should vaccinate themselves to their heart’s content, get PCR tested three times a day, wear five masks on top of each other, smear liters of disinfectant on their skin, and go shopping in BSL3 protective suits. There is only one thing he is not allowed to do: assume and demand that all fellow human beings share his priorities, fears, and security needs. A state that encourages it instead of rebuking it lures with the comfort of the golden cage. Should we make ourselves comfortable in it?
Fall for Beijing’s ruse?
The fact that, in exceptional cases, people can transmit pathogens to one another without symptoms is anything but spectacular. It has always existed. The phenomenon of the flu has long been known, of typhoid and HIV / AIDS, of measles, and infections of the gastrointestinal tract.
But you hardly cared about it. Nobody considered, let alone organized mass tests on symptom-free people, followed their contacts with criminalistic relentlessness, robbed them of their freedom, as was the case most recently in the Third Reich. Before 2020, no one dedicated imposing dashboards to the supposedly infected kept records of complaints-free cheery, redefined them as “recovered” and “sick”, forged their death certificates. Why now? Why just after a concentrated load of curves, tables, and diagrams made in China, which strangely unanimously incite the hunt for healthy people – and to reshape established democracies according to totalitarian models, hell out of it?
A US legal group suspects nothing less than a stratagem by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators – a global, pseudo-scientifically disguised fraud to politically and economically damage the countries that fall for it. With the “lockdown”, their Great Leader, whom Mao adored Xi Jin-Ping, invented a self-destructive strategy that he wisely delimited regionally and quickly broke off in his own country, while the West emulated it senselessly. The danger of “silent transmission” had to appear as monstrous as possible. Only those who fear this bogus beyond measure will immediately harass the entire, largely healthy population, instead of treading the only sensible path from the outset: Protect risk groups, leave everyone else alone.
In an open letter, the lawyers asked the FBI and Western secret services to investigate the matter. But who wants to spoil it with the soon-to-be world power number one?
Translated with permission Klartext
Remarks
(1) L. Huang u.a.: “Rapid asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 during the incubation period demonstrating strong infectivity in a cluster of youngsters aged 16–23 years outside Wuhan and characteristics of young patients with COVID-19: a prospective contact-tracing study. Journal of Infection 2020; P. Li u.a.: “Transmission of COVID-19 in the terminal stages of the incubation period: A familial cluster “, International Journal of Infectious Diseases 96/2020, S. 452–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.027 PMID: 32194239; W. J. Xiao u.a.: “Investigation of an epidemic cluster caused by COVID-19 cases in incubation period in Shanghai “, Zhonghua Liu xing bing Xue za Zhi 2020; 41(0):E033, https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200302-00236 PMID: 32234128; F. Ye u.a.: “Delivery of infection from asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 in a familial cluster “, International Journal of Infectious Diseases 94/2020, S. 133–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.042 PMID: 32247826
(2) S. Y. Park u.a.: “Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea “, Emerging Infectious Disease 2020, https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2608.201274 PMID: 32324530
(3) M. Yanes-Lane u.a.: “Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 15(11) 2020: e0241536, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241536.
(4) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042606v1; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.006 https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30117-1/fulltext; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6
(5) World Health Organization: “Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions, 9.7.2020, https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions
(6) JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(1):e2035057. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35057
(7) Shin Young Park u.a.: “Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea “, Emerging Infectious Diseases 26 (8), 23. April 2020, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article
(8) https://cormandrostenreview.com/; https://www.anderweltonline.com/klartext/klartext-20202/corona-tests-967-prozent-falsch-positiv/; https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/13/covid-19-testing.aspx?ui=d503235325038e7b4f1f46eb68a48ff02ee0b104fe815572e6d5504e6da7c48e&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20201113Z1&mid=DM706762&rid=1010249377; https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/covid-testing-fraud-fuels-casedemic.aspx?ui=d503235325038e7b4f1f46eb68a48ff02ee0b104fe815572e6d5504e6da7c48e&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20201119_HL2&mid=DM723904&rid=1014893177
(9) https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/573/eabe2555; https://www.nzz.ch/panorama/coronavirus-1000-partikel-reichen-fuer-eine-infektion-was-das-fuer-weihnachtsfeiern-bedeutet-ld.1588857; https://www.ptaheute.de/news/artikel/circa-1000-viruspartikel-fuer-ansteckung-noetig/
(10) Liling Chaw u.a.: “Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Different Settings, Brunei “, Emerging Infectious Diseases 26 (11) 9.10.2020, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-2263_article
(11) Justin Wong u.a.: “Asymptomatic transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 and implications for mass gatherings “, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Vol. 14 (5), 30.5.2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7300701/
(12) https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Steckbrief.html; Stand 25.1.2021, abgerufen am 6.2.2021.
(13) https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/13/831883560/can-a-coronavirus-patient-who-isnt-showing-symptoms-infect-others?t=1611658469639; W.E. Wei u.a.: “Presymptomatic transmissionof SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore “, January 23 -March 16, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 69/2020, S. 411-415, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e1.htm
(14) Zit. nach https://www.nationalreview.com/news/who-says-transmission-by-asymptomatic-covid-patients-very-rare/; https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200609/who-clairifies-comments-on-asymptomatic-covid-spread
(15) X. He u.a.: “Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19 “, Nature Medicine 26 (5) 2020, S. 672-675. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5; S. Lee u.a.: “Clinical course and molecular viral shedding among asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community treatment center in the Republic of Korea “, JAMA Internal Medicine 2020, doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3862; A. E. Benefield u.a.: “SARS-CoV-2 viral load peaks prior to symptom onset: a systematic review and individual-pooled analysis of coronavirus viral load from 66 studies “, medRxiv. Preprint, 30.9.2020, doi:10.1101/2020.09.28.202020289
(16) D. K. Milton u.a.: “Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks “, PLoS Pathogens 9/2013, e1003205, https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205; J. Yan u.a.: “Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community “, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115/2018, S. 1081–1086, https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081; J. J. McDevitt u.a.: “Development and performance evaluation of an exhaled-breath bioaerosol collector for influenza virus “, Aerosol Science and Technology 47/2013, S. 444–451, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235650532_Development_and_Performance_Evaluation_of_an_Exhaled-Breath_Bioaerosol_Collector_for_Influenza_Virus; https://www.ingenieur.de/fachmedien/gefahrstoffe/biomonitoring/ein-automatischer-bioaerosolsammler-fuer-die-kontinuierliche-probenahme-von-luftgetragenen-mikroorganismen/
(17) https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30117-1/fulltext; DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.006