you are going to need science to establish what you just claimed.
some super spreaders may be low risk... some high risk...
do you have any science saying its only low risk?
There is anecdotal evidence which shows you just pulled shit out of your doomer brain...
Why are you always bullshitting about science?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971211000245
...
This study revealed that high numbers of close contacts represent a risk factor for super-spreading events.
25 Another risk factor for super-spreading events emerges from the report of a 54-year-old male who presented on April 15 to Pingjin Hospital in China, seeking treatment for
coronary heart disease, type II diabetes, and
chronic renal failure.
26 Subsequent to his admission the same day, the patient developed fever,
myalgia and a sore throat, and a physician later suspected SARS based on previous contact with a SARS patient in another hospital. On April 17, the patient was transferred to the Tianjin
Thorax Disease Hospital and received treatment for two days, and on April 19 he was again transferred to the Tianjin Infectious Disease Hospital, where he died. Only in Pingjin Hospital, this patient directly infected 33 others. Implementing active surveillance, limiting inter-hospital transfers, and quarantining patients who could have been exposed, emerge as important lessons from this experience.
At least two super-spreading events were described in Hong Kong.
21 In the Prince of Wales Hospital, the index patient was a 26-year-old man admitted on March 4, 2003 who, as part of his right upper lobe pneumonia treatment, was administered
bronchodilators via a
nebulizer. Together with overcrowding and an outdated ventilation system, this is thought to have facilitated the spread of the virus. Within the next two weeks, 156 individuals, including hospital staff, patients, and visitors, were admitted to the hospital, all of them traceable to this patient, and SARS was diagnosed in 138 of them.
27,
28,
29
The index patient in the second super-spreader outbreak was an individual on
hemodialysis for chronic renal failure who had diarrhea and, on two occasions, stayed with his brother in Block E in the Amoy Gardens residential complex.
30,
31 Amoy Gardens has 19 residential blocks, with eight apartments on each of the 33 floors.
31 In several bathrooms from block E, it was reported that the U-shaped traps linking the vertical drainage pipes, known as risers, to the sanitary fixtures, did not function properly. As a result, when water flowed down, the backflow from the risers was able to generate aerosols and spread pathogens into individual bathrooms. In addition, powerful window fans installed by residents in many bathrooms created a significant negative pressure that amplified the aerosol backflow. In the Amoy Gardens complex outbreak, 329 individuals were infected and 42 died.
32 The cases occurred in clusters, at specific floor levels, in a pattern that simple person-to-person transmission could not explain, and an epidemiological investigation proposed, as a plausible explanation, a common source of exposure for all infected individuals.
33 Approximately 45% of the infections occurred in Block E, the same block that the index patient visited, and approximately 60% were within flats 7 and 8, bordering the specific vertical riser thought to be involved. An investigation found that the index patient had very high concentrations of virus in the urine and feces, and proposed that aerosolization as a result of the hydraulic effect inside drainage pipes facilitated the spread of the pathogen.
32 This outbreak revealed the importance of taking indoor air quality and building ventilation into account when exploring the dynamics of airborne pathogens. It was, in addition, suggested that in certain individuals, immune system defects could increase the
viral load and make them become super-spreaders, as could have happened with the index patient who was undergoing hemodialysis, which is known to impair both innate and adaptive immunity.
27,
34
An interesting observation came from the Vietnam outbreak. When on March 12, 2003 the Vietnam French Hospital in Hanoi was closed for new admissions and 33 patients were admitted to another hospital until May 2, no nosocomial infections were reported in the second hospital and none of its healthcare workers became ill with a condition that resembled SARS,
35 revealing that in the absence of super-spreading events, most patients do not infect others.
Superspreaders are related to your low risk people that you allow to wander around freely and attend packed events. Superspreaders are not high risk residents staying at home.
Superspreaders are associated with events with many people at one location -- holding these types of events is what causes the mass COVID breakouts in a community. Which merely demonstrates why lockdowns, social distancing, and limited sizes for groups are required.
'Superspreader' Events May Be Responsible for 80% of COVID Infections
https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pa...events-may-be-responsible-80-covid-infections
Some scientists now say “superspreader” events may be responsible for at least 80 percent of coronavirus infections.
A report on the website of
The Telegraph, a British newspaper, details some findings that
“closely packed markets, vigorous dance classes, loud bars and choirs” may be the primary culprits in the spreading of the virus.
(More at above url)
