terradactylexpress said:
Just a single carrier though, needs to be looked at in a larger study
AggieJosh2002 said:
Directly from the study's conclusion:
" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."
It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.
I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.
This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.
Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?
For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.
Keller6Ag91 said:
While we certainly certainly shouldn't be claiming victory, this is an important development that would be a benefit for us all. Hopefully other complementary tasks are in the works and will be seen soon.
AggieJosh2002 said:
Directly from the study's conclusion:
" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."
It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.
I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.
This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.
Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?
For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.
Gordo14 said:AggieJosh2002 said:
Directly from the study's conclusion:
" In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak."
It's great that not all asymptomatic folks are highly contagious. However all the study can conclude is that "some" asymptomatic carriers might be weak. It really doesn't tell us much and proves little either way.
I've seen people post this study and say, "see, asymptomatics don't spread the virus" which absolutely is not the takeaway from this study, even from the authors.
This study warrants the need for a larger study to learn more, but I imagine it is a tough study to do on a large scale.
Questions I have for doing a larger study:
How do you find the "asymptomatic" carrier and how do you know when they actually got the virus and are in the contagious stage?
For instance, some people are testing positive for the virus 30 days after their first positive. If someone tests positive as an asymptomatic, how do you know they didn't have the virus already for 30 days and have been well past the contagious stage for a long time. It seems to me that it is a really tough problem to study on a large scale, but also seems hugely important.
However this anecdotal evidence
FrioAg 00 said:
I tested positive for the antibodies - with the most accurate serology test, and never having been symptomatic at all.
I was nearly, but not quite, asymptomatic. As far as I can tell, I didn't infect anyone.Snap E Tom said:
This is in line with another study looking specifically at r0 a few weeks ago. The conclusion was that asymptomatic carriers accounted for very little transmission (r0 of 0.1). It was the pre-symptomatic people that were the problem.
FrioAg 00 said:
Blood test in the lab for IgG, rather than a test for the viral genome (nasal swab in an office)
Quote:
with the most accurate serology test,