Should every SARS-CoV-2 infection be called covid?

[lljkk]

Just struck me...

All the people with quite mild infection, barely any symptoms, or no symptoms at all. Do they really have "COVID-19" disease... ? Wouldn't it make more sense to say they have infection with same virus, but only the people who feel truly ill actually "have COVID-19" ?

That makes no sense at all. The disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2 is by definition called Covid-19, however mild or severe it is. It’s exactly the same for all other infectious diseases. If you have no symptoms you have asymptomatic disease. You still have the disease.

Lots of people have MRSA on their skin for years but are not sick - do they have staphlococcal disease?

Many people carry streptococcus in their throats asymptomatically for years. Are they suffering from strep throat?

Up to 40% of young adults carry meningococcus in their throats for years but are not unwell. Do they have meningitis?

Do people who have SARS Cov-2 in their noses/throats but feel absolutely fine have Covid?

As the others have said, it's very common to carry a virus or bacterium and not be sick. It's completely standard in fact. For some reason people have acted all surprised about it with covid - even people in the medical profession, who definitely know about other asymptomatic illnesses (it's possible have measles asymptomatically for example) express surprise at the range of outcomes.

What we need to worry about is unmanageable levels of illness not asymptomatic infection. Transmission from the asymptomatic is also very low (not saying it's zero, but still very low, nothing is zero risk anyway). So the people without symptoms aren't the main group to worry about passing it on.

Isn't something like 50% of flu infection asymptomatic? You don't say "I have flu" if you have zero symptoms.

This has been one of the issues all along - infection with the virus has = a case, whereas it wouldn't be with any other virus.
It really should be based on hospitalisations or something. Mind you, I'm not over keen on "letting it rip" when this leads to ever more contagious variants.

Javid in commons said something similar today -- he was asked about 2 hospitalisation categories:

• People admitted primarily because they need treatment for covid

• People admitted because they need treatment for something else and they also happen to have covid

Counting the separate categories will have uncertainties, but I think we need to see those figures. My guess is the people > 70 nearly all need treatment for covid, the people < 50 nearly all need treatment for other things, the age 51-69 are split evenly.

@amicissimma Those bacteria are commensals though, not always pathogens. SARS-CoV-2 isn’t. None of the coronaviruses are AFAIK.

They are all infected with the same virus which causes the same disease with different levels of severity. Not 'showing' any symptoms doesn't make asymptomatic individuals immune to the disease, they are still infected. And they would still transmit the virus. Also we don't know the extent to which asymptomatic cases are affected long term even if not all show easy to observe damage.
We should concentrate on all levels of infection because they are all vectors of transmission and they could all, potentially, require treatment or medical intervention. Both issues are of interest to everyone.

Although I am under the impression the vast majority of people would ride it out and potential long damage would subside with or without medical intervention on a case by case basis. For ex., there were reports last year of asymptomatic individuals suffering long term (but not irreversible) lung damage of which they were not aware of. There may well be other situations such as long term fatigue setting in following asymptomatic infection which sets in at a later date and is not officially linked to the initial infection if, say, the person wasn't aware they were infected.