Comment by brigandish | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brigandish | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Presymptomatic might be a better term than asymptomatic, as the evidence for asymptomatic spread is weak and weakening. One example[1]:

> Research early in the pandemic suggested that the rate of asymptomatic infections could be as high as 81%. But a meta-analysis published last month, which included 13 studies involving 21,708 people, calculated the rate of asymptomatic presentation to be 17%. The analysis defined asymptomatic people as those who showed none of the key COVID-19 symptoms during the entire follow-up period, and the authors included only studies that followed participants for at least seven days.

There are many more I've read where the authors have tried to quantify asymptomatic spread and been found wanting (studies on children are particularly enlightening). I wouldn't be surprised if the final figure ends up being very close to, if not, zero, though we're still in the clutches of the initial panic so I suspect those findings to take time due more to social resistance than the frictions involved in actual science.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3?error=coo...

Note that I said "asymptomatic spread", not "asymptomatic infection" – i.e. a host spreading SARS-CoV-2 without experiencing or showing symptoms from the active infection. Whether the host goes on to experience symptoms from said infection at some point in the future isn't what I was referring to.

Right, and that changes nothing about my response as that's what I was responding to, there is still weak and weakening evidence for transmission by those with asymptomatic infection.

For example[1]:

> We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure.

[1] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article

You seem to be misunderstanding me here. When I say "asymptomatic transmission," I am referring to whether or not a person is displaying/experiencing symptoms at the time of transmission.

"Presymptomatic transmission" is asymptomatic transmission. Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.

You're just using a definition that none of the papers I've read use when trying to make a useful distinction. Asymptomatic as a term is distinct from presymptomatic the moment presymptomatic is used, or there would need to be another word for those who remain asymptomatic, and that word is, unsurprisingly, asymptomatic.

> Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.

What's actually irrelevant is talking about asymptomatic infections - defined as those which do not become symptomatic - as if they do become symptomatic. Again, I'm yet to find a paper that does this. Whether or not an infection is more likely to become symptomatic or not is not relevant here, nor did I make reference to any such likelihood, because it's not relevant.

I can't tell if you're quibbling because you don't want to accept a minor correction or because you haven't bothered to read any of the literature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com