Well, you seem argumentative in responses to me.
Yes, the conversation started as one about asymptomatic spread and I was clearly changing that to make a point, which was talking about asymptomatic spread alone is misguided. Whatever point you're trying to make regarding really low asymptomatic spread is made meaningless by the existence and prevalence of presymptomatic spread.
It's funny to me that you commented that presymptomatic spread might be significant in an in-home (and unmasked) situation... it's almost like your afraid to buy into a high level of presymptomatic spread because of that.
N.L.,
This is the map I always try to follow for where I go:
1. With no knowledge and/or understanding myself, and no data: No opinion. Or, if a hypothesis seems to make a lot of sense and has overwhelming support, then that.
2. With a basic/fundamental understanding, but no data: Whatever hypothesis that seems to make the most sense between those I hear/learn from others, and the one Occam's razor tells me.
3. With a solid understanding, but no data: Whatever hypothesis that seems to make the most sense between those I hear/learn from others, and the one Occam's razor tells me. (same as above)
4. When data is introduced, I follow that data. The quality and quantity of the data determines how far I follow it, but the data drives my opinion/position.
For me, simply, the effect of presymptomatic community spread falls into #1. It's easy to understand how presymptomatic spread would/could be significant in the home. In the community, there are a lot more factors at play that make it harder to have a strong opinion. If perfect data emerged tomorrow making it clear that presymptomatic spread in the community was anywhere between insignificant and significant, I would not be surprised.
And I'm not "afraid" to buy into anything. Like everyone else, I usually don't enjoy finding out that I'm wrong about something... But unlike (seemingly) so many others, I would rather experience the short term pain to the ego that comes with learning/admitting I was wrong than experience the long term pain of continually trying to support and defend an opinion/position where which the evidence shows it to most likely not be correct.
Two examples of this:
- Asymptomatic spread. I'm kinda embarrassed to say that I didn't do any of my own research and fully bought into that conspiracy theory - hook, line and sinker - like many others. I repeated it in conversation and online, and contributed to the misinformation. But as time went by without much in the way of scientific proof or evidence, I started to wonder about it. Then, when studies/data like the one I linked above started coming out, I realized I was most likely wrong and changed my position.
- Airborne transmission (as we have sparred on in the past). As you know, I was in the camp that believed infectable virus was shed on the droplets of coughs/sneeze/spittle and could only travel a little further than those droplets... But as more relevant data came out, I began to question my accepted understanding on that, and now it seems most likely that I was in fact wrong and not only can infectable virus travel considerably further than the droplets (especially in the case of a sneeze), but some virus might even shed from normal breathing exhales (most likely in the exhales following a sneeze, but still). There's some nuance involved, but generally that is where the data shows us to most likely be with regards to that, so I was wrong before, and this is where my opinion is today.
jamanetwork.com
