4 ms·

> So, it's true that the WHO said that, although they've since clarified that by 'no evidence' they mean "we don't know", not "it doesn't happen". ('no evidence

> So, it's true that the WHO said that, although they've since clarified that by 'no evidence' they mean "we don't know", not "it doesn't happen". ('no evidence' is one of those phrases that people misunderstand). However, _pre-symptomatic_ cases are contagious, and there's no way to know if you're negative, asymptomatic, or pre-symptomatic, so as public health advice "asymptomatic people may not be contagious" is not useful (it's somewhat useful from and epidemiological standpoint). I understand this, but curbing on fundamental freedoms based on "no evidence" is a hard sell for many of us. I have the luxury of playing it safe because I'm a remote working software engineer, but if I still worked in a shop like I did a few years ago I could be homeless now. > Who claimed that?! There was "reasonable" (reasonable looking) evidence that locked down states did worse numbers-wise, but this obviously doesn't control for population density. My point is that nobody knows what's going on anymore.

perl4ever 6y ago
>I understand this It sounds like you glided right over the difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. This seems crucial to the whole cloud of confusion that exists and is being promoted here. Trying to be as charitable as possible, if you were sincere in saying >The information overload is getting extreme. So which is it? The contradiction appears to be directly due to misunderstanding of "asymptomatic" and the follow up comment tried to explain it. I don't doubt this misunderstanding is widespread, but I don't know how to rectify it and it often seems as though people might be deliberately obtuse.
rsynnott 6y ago
> I understand this, but curbing on fundamental freedoms based on "no evidence" is a hard sell for many of us. To be clear, right now, today, there is no way for you to know if you're asymptomatic, presymtomatic, or negative (unless you've had literally no human contact for a couple of weeks, in which case you can be confident that you're negative). Risk of spreading the disease in this state: Negative: None Asymptomatic: Unknown Presymptomatic: High So for the average person in the street, it is essentially _irrelevant_ that we don't know what the risk is for asymptomatic spread; there is no practical way for them to know if they're asymptomatic or presymptomatic. It is an interesting question from an epidemiological point of view; if asymptomatic people can spread it easily, then that makes things worse. But as an individual, considering your risk of spreading it, it is irrelevant.

perl4ever 6y ago

>I understand this It sounds like you glided right over the difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. This seems crucial to the whole cloud of confusion that exists and is being promoted here. Trying to be as charitable as possible, if you were sincere in saying >The information overload is getting extreme. So which is it? The contradiction appears to be directly due to misunderstanding of "asymptomatic" and the follow up comment tried to explain it. I don't doubt this misunderstanding is widespread, but I don't know how to rectify it and it often seems as though people might be deliberately obtuse.

rsynnott 6y ago

> I understand this, but curbing on fundamental freedoms based on "no evidence" is a hard sell for many of us. To be clear, right now, today, there is no way for you to know if you're asymptomatic, presymtomatic, or negative (unless you've had literally no human contact for a couple of weeks, in which case you can be confident that you're negative). Risk of spreading the disease in this state: Negative: None Asymptomatic: Unknown Presymptomatic: High So for the average person in the street, it is essentially _irrelevant_ that we don't know what the risk is for asymptomatic spread; there is no practical way for them to know if they're asymptomatic or presymptomatic. It is an interesting question from an epidemiological point of view; if asymptomatic people can spread it easily, then that makes things worse. But as an individual, considering your risk of spreading it, it is irrelevant.