Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
It is weasel wording. If the statement expanded on why there is no evidence, it would not be weasel wording. Everyone on this thread can think of examples where "they" have said stuff like that and we don't know whether or not the case has been examined.
|
You might like to check out the first link I posted (
this one) It's a bit dated, being published in February but was indicative of the state of knowledge at that time - viral RNA is seen in blood for coronavirus infections but there is no evidence of transmission through blood for SARS and MERS. So RNA yes, virus no in blood.
The second paper described a 'worst case' where the worst possible type of patient was given platelets from an infected donor and nothing happened. However, a sample size of one does not make evidence.
Evidence will come from track and trace - where did that patient get infected? If all human sources are excluded except the fact that the patient received blood or blood products, there's the evidence.