Study of 10 Mil finds no asymptomatic spread

The screening of the 9,865,404 participants without a history of COVID-19 found no newly confirmed COVID-19 cases, and identified 300 asymptomatic positive cases with a detection rate of 0.303 (95% CI 0.270–0.339)/10,000. The median age-stratified Ct-values of the asymptomatic cases were shown in Supplementary Table 1. Of the 300 asymptomatic positive cases, two cases came from one family and another two were from another family. There were no previously confirmed COVID-19 patients in these two families. A total of 1174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

 

It looks as if China's obsessive control paid off.  

 .......'If you believe Chinese reports.  (As it happens, I do, but I am sure not everyone will.)

Point being the study found zero evidence of asymptomatic spread of the virus. And no doubt their contract tracing methods are as effective as it gets as a totalitarian society.  And then you have to ask why would they lie about that aspect, if indeed they are lying about their numbers regarding asymptomatic spread. Nothing to gain lying about it and claiming zero transmission through that aspect of the virus.

Technophobe wrote: It is a bit hard to have asymptomatic spread, when almost all asymptomatic people are also virus free. As to why they are virus free - massive lockdowns and social controls.

And yet they tested positive for the virus. And that is hardly virus free. 

Of course then we could have the conversation about what % of positive PCR tests actually contain viable virus.

WitchMisspelled wrote: Since both the PCR and RT test detect the virus' genetic material, wouldn't that mean that virus is present?  Since genetic material needs to be viable to be detected via the PCR and RT test, couldn't the virus be spread?

The virus does not need to be viable to trigger a positive PCR or RT test.

Remember, all of the testings that we routinely do measures the current or previous presence of COVID-19 RNA. A non-viable virion counts the same as a viable one in these tests, but only viable COVID-19 can transmit the disease from one person to another. 

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/25/covid-19-viral-load-and-shedding-update-15177

WitchMisspelled wrote: Thanks, AI.  But I'm still confused. If non-viable virons count the same as viable in these tests, then anyone who was ever exposed would count as positive.  Why would I not test as positive if I had Covid back in February?  Like, say, mononucleosis virus... Because I had it in college, but years later started showing symptoms again, my viral load was counted twice - a week apart to see if it increased.  Point being is if the virus is present it is viable if the viral count is increasing and not viable if not increasing.  At least that's my understanding.  These tests don't count viral load rather whether the virus is present.

Most likely because of the high % of false negative and false positive test results. The tests are not very accurate. Testing done on the same day of both nostrils may result in a positive and negative result. 

Just because you are positive doesn't mean your viral load is increasing or high. I have a friend who is paraplegic who caught covid and was released from the hospital despite still testing positive per the CDC guidelines. Positive doesn't necessarily mean contagious.

New Scientist News: Test caught just 3 per cent of students with covid-19 at UK university.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2263746-test-caught-just-3-per-cent-of-students-with-covid-19-at-uk-university/?utm_campaign=RSS%7CNSNS&utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=news