Our group's household secondary attack rate meta-analysis has gained traction, but not for the reasons I'd hoped for. We did not conclude "no asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread" of SARS-CoV-2. A short explanation of what we did observe. 1/7
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102
Using only the household studies included in our main analysis, we conducted a sub-analysis breaking out index cases designated as symptomatic versus asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic. We observe lower transmission from this latter group, though there was much less data. 2/7
Since we are relying upon other studies in the literature, we were unable to separate out fully asymptomatic index cases (never develop symptoms) from pre-symptomatic index cases. But others have tackled this problem directly. Their conclusions below. 3/7
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.01.20135194v2
I see a growing body of evidence that individuals who *never* develop symptoms are less infectious. This has practical implications for isolation. But as many have re-iterated (including us), pre-symptomatic transmission can and does occur. 4/7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
But the flip side of this is that, even if something occurs less frequently, it can still play an important role in the overall epidemic. If an asymptomatic person is far less infectious but has far more contacts than someone home with a fever, it can come out in the wash. 5/7
You can follow @nataliexdean.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.