COVID-19 is highly infectious before symptoms appear.
Q: Can asymptomatic coronavirus disease be transmitted?
A: Asymptomatic transmission refers to transmission of the virus from a person, who does not develop symptoms. There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission.
I would add that they only state that there are few reports of truly asymptomatic cases (thus suggesting that asymptomatic cases don't exist) and thus so far there have been no documented case of asymptomatic transmission, which is to be expected if asymptomatic cases don't exist.
IIRC, I've read the WHO tends to drag its feet with new information, and is usually the last major organization to come around to new findings. They might not be the best group to listen to in a fast moving area like this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o...
> But interviews with nearly 20 scientists — including a dozen W.H.O. consultants and several members of the committee that crafted the guidance — and internal emails paint a picture of an organization that, despite good intentions, is out of step with science....
> But the infection prevention and control committee in particular, experts said, is bound by a rigid and overly medicalized view of scientific evidence, is slow and risk-averse in updating its guidance and allows a few conservative voices to shout down dissent.
> “They’ll die defending their view,” said one longstanding W.H.O. consultant, who did not wish to be identified because of her continuing work for the organization. Even its staunchest supporters said the committee should diversify its expertise and relax its criteria for proof, especially in a fast-moving outbreak....
> The W.H.O. has found itself at odds with groups of scientists more than once during this pandemic.
> The agency lagged behind most of its member nations in endorsing face coverings for the public. While other organizations, including the C.D.C., have long since acknowledged the importance of transmission by people without symptoms, the W.H.O. still maintains that asymptomatic transmission is rare.
> “At the country level, a lot of W.H.O. technical staff are scratching their heads,” said a consultant at a regional office in Southeast Asia, who did not wish to be identified because he was worried about losing his contract. “This is not giving us credibility.”
because WHO is a top of the pyramid standards body (of sorts), they are slow to adopt new lines of thinking. Very waterfall, not agile. When the ISO updates a publication we have a near zero expectation it will be amended any time soon.
WHO follows a similar mechanism, which, prima facie, seems fitting — until it's not — COVID-19 being the glaring counterexample we're living through right here & now.
Science is much more rigorous than this article- but it's a fun read.
You mean these names? They're linked in the article.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa939...
They're credible enough and this action public enough that the WHO got the message: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/health/coronavirus-aeroso....
> we're relying solely on the credibility of the author from the NYT. Given the incentive structure of being an internet blogger (sensationalism = $$$$), that credibility is very limited.
The NYT isn't a blog.
But the WHO are medical professional people. And I am not. Like most people.
And I want to be able to trust the professionals.
And trusted and cited for medical facts all around.
But if they would be caught bending medical facts to political will .. that would be not helpful.
The same confusion happened over masks.
https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-viral-shedding-can...
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931898
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v...
0.25% is what the preprint says for overall infection fatality rate -- 1 in 400 probability of dying if you are infected.
And for the 2017-2018 flu season, the odds of dying from it were 1 in 5400. [2]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
The overall odds that you have died from corvid-19 this season so far in the US are 1 in 2433 (based on 411 deaths per Million population at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ).
Often the "not horrible odds" argument is made by someone being dismissive of folks who are following health orders -- I still look both ways if I cross the street.
Literally, by spouting your 1/2433 odds, you being disingenuous for most people. A person could greatly reduce their personal odds by taking extra vitamins and eating healthy and getting good sleep, entirely without wearing a mask.
Your street crossing example is an example of you following a health order for your own personal safety. You could simply use the crosswalk without looking - that would be you relying on others to wear their mask to ensure your personal safety.
When you make your personal safety dependent on my goodwill, I'm going to let you fall, hard.
Your point seems to be that folks should not follow health orders since the odds are good for most people, and that you will do your part to make sure folks will get what they deserve?
People haven't worried about flu death rates or (insert other disease) death rates before. Why should I go out of my way to protect someone who won't protect themselves by staying home locked away from the world?
After I recovered from my COVID, why should I wear a mask if I'm COVID antibody positive? To make you feel better?