> Saying that you are not being overconfident with that level of confidence seems like a red flag.
Were it just me, I'd agree with you, however it is the data that we must look at:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/scie...
Were it just me, I'd agree with you, however it is the data that we must look at:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/scie...
The article in question does not address the fact that I raised, and also you shouldn't make claims the authors are not making:
"Our findings, based on comprehensive surveillance and contact-tracing data from the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, provide insight into the epidemiology of COVID-19 in resource-limited populations."
Specifically: "Whereas incidence declined steadily at ages older than 30 to 39 years in the two Indian states, incidence increased at ages of ≥65 years in the United States."
So their finding might be applicable if the general trends matched but the study specifically says they don't, in the way that I generally pointed towards.
Also the study in question points to "superspreading individuals" but not "superspreading events" and that difference is significant. A "superspreader" who attends an event that can cause superspreading event, but a superspreader that goes to many places and meets just a few people at those places can super-spread! It's different! The study does NOT support your implied claim that asymptomatic spreaders can't be superspreaders.