> 1. Can we really sweep away all the evidence of asymptomatic spread because of a "special PCR test" years after the fact? We had a lot of good reasons to beli

> 1. Can we really sweep away all the evidence of asymptomatic spread because of a "special PCR test" years after the fact? We had a lot of good reasons to believe this at the time, and none of them are engaged with here. What evidence are you referring to? The article seemingly contradicts this in the following: > In June 2020, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said that transmission from asymptomatic people was “very rare.” This conclusion was based on a number of countries doing very detailed contact tracing, she said Point #2: > that means that symptomatic people were going out in public and spreading it. That is precisely what happened. There were many reports of "outbreaks" that were traced back to very symptomatic people that attended parties or duties and infected large groups. > either because they did not understand their symptoms or didn't care. So what do you do, other than require masks by default? What does this change? There were many reasons people did not comply with the directives. Some right, some wrong. Requiring masks, social distancing, etc. for everyone would make sense even if asymptomatic people cannot spread the virus, given that some people are going to ignore their symptoms and expose others. This assuming masks and distancing work, the directives were legal and/or moral, and the virus was not going to get around to everyone eventually anyway and harm the same amount to the same extent. People lied, ignored, and obfuscated the truth about their symptoms and contributed to the spread of the virus. People also lied, ignored, and obfuscated the truth about the nature of the virus and contributed to bad policy.