An incredibly interesting article regarding asymptomatic transmission

[Redbrickwall]

www.aier.org/article/asymptomatic-spread-revisited/

It has been shared by several well known medics.

It blew my mind a bit

The WHO changes what it says when it gets more data. Sadly cranks dont.

Scientists are alowed to question anything, if they have data to support their reasoning. Cranks with an agenda can question too - but only other cranks listen.

@AlaskaThunderfuckHiiiiiiiii

I remember the WHO saying this about asymptomatic spread and then also heard it being discussed again on a radio discussion a few weeks ago, they were saying again how asymptomatic spread was unlikely

The problem though is presymptomatic spread.

Studies have shown that people can be contagious in the first several days of having the virus, before they show symptoms. One study actually estimated that more than 40% of novel coronavirus cases were transmitted in the presymptomatic phase.

So the article isn't that helpful.
Also there is evidence that they do spread it but not as much.

www.cnet.com/health/can-you-spread-coronavirus-even-if-you-dont-have-symptoms/

Even if people didn’t spread it when asymptomatic the article basically wants to do away with masks and restrictions as they’d not be needed as people with symptoms would stay at home. Well we all know that they don’t and traditionally sick people still go out/ to work. I think we’d still need masks for that reason anyway

One study actually estimated that more than 40% of novel coronavirus cases were transmitted in the presymptomatic phase.

One study...

JAMA is meta-analysis, much more meaningful

It's wrong. That false claim has been withdrawn by the woman who made it, AND by the WHO

@SRYnegative

Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)

18.0 % symptomatic vs 0.7% asymptomatic in the JAMA meta-analysis is quite convincingly reduced, however (180 vs 7 infections in 1000)

MedSchoolRat your data is eroneous

But how many of those symptomatic transmissions actually occurred during the presymptomatic stage? There's been far too much lumping together of asymptomatic, presymptomatic and symptomatic but not with one of the UK's main symptoms into one category. It's entirely academic if there's minimal asymptomatic spread when there is a fair amount of presymptomatic spread and you can't tell the two apart.

It's not that my data were wrong, it's that my statement about someone else's data was wrong.

Fair enough to point out I said that wrong.

The 4 studies on pre/asymptomatic transmission had risk of bias...

Low: Chaw, central estimate 5%
Moderate: Lewis, 0%
High: Lee, 4%
High: Park, 0%

I think RoB is why I got it in my head that the estimate was about 5%. The only low bias study, and the only study approaching even medium size, was 5% attack rate. But it's a small population set so is "limited evidence."

My main point that it's false to say there's "no evidence" transmission without symptoms ever happened -- still stands. Even the original case report in NEJM of the German businesswoman transmitting asymptomatically stands (won't be in above meta-analysis).