SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
More than half of people with strong Covid infection are asymptomatic, new figures show:
More than half of people with a strong Covid infection did not report any of the major symptoms, new figures from the Office for National Statistics have revealed.
This underlines the risk of people spreading the virus without knowing they are infected which is thought to be one of the main ways the coronavirus pandemic has been able to spread so easily around the world.
The ONS said 53 per cent of people with a strong positive, or high viral load, between December and March did not report having any symptoms compared to 47 per cent who did. It excluded patients likely to be at the start of their infection when transmission and symptoms are thought to be less likely.
Fatigue, headache and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms amongst people who had a strong positive test for Covid-19.
[...] "Around half of those we tested did not report any symptoms even whilst having high levels of the virus present in their body. This underlines that people in the community may unknowingly have the virus and potentially transmit it to others."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @05:42AM
Certainly. I didn't invent the phrase, but there are no grounds. Frankly, such grounds needn't be established - they're natural. Nature itself doesn't subscribe to logic, but rather logic emerges from nature and thus is subordinate to it. Actually defining those rights is a fools errand, but you could spout off a bunch of tautologies about the right to motivate your body, to think, to act in self-preservation using thought and body.
I actually use the term equilibrium very deliberately. As I see it life is generally is fractaline. We've unconsciously built a pantomime of an organism, society mimics features you would see in studying an organism. For instance the exchange of entropy between the environment and the organism. To remain alive it must export entropy. Upon reaching equilibrium, an organism can be defined as dead. There's a degree of necessary perturbation both externally and internally. Extremes in either case are adverse or fatal depending on timescale. And having reached equilibrium the forces acting to maintain the organism cease and it is returned to the environment. In the case I'm making the "return to the environment" is a return to natural rights. All of the organs must act in concert to prevent this, and any failure of a major organ would press the system to its end. So if the rule of law fails, all other organs will fail in time. By "orthagonal" I suspect you mean to indicate the independence of law from morality - and I would agree to that. It destabilizes the organism (internal strife). But I would also assert that beyond the disconnection volume of law plays a large role, I'd posit law determines direction, and with too many laws you spin in place like a silly ciliate, no more life sustaining nutrients. If your disconnection and volume increase slowly enough the organism can adapt up to a point. The problem with law is it never seems to undergo enough autophagy, the volume continues to grow.
I still disagree, but I'll rescind my previous statement and offer a new one: the social structure emerges from diet, and is thus subordinate to it. A lone wolf is hard fought to provide for itself, an ape is perfectly capable alone (physically anyways). With the fitness landscape (can a wolf afford 21% of its metabolism dedicated to brain function?), and the fact that there are no known sapient organisms other than humans while also having had the same time and pressure to develop similar higher cognitive features, I would be willing to assert that the physiological makeup of our ancestors and their flexible diet (and thus it follows: their social hierarchies) have arrived here, being the only species capable of developing complex social hierarchies as a product.