> From a special test they developed, the researchers found a remarkable 96 percent of people who were PCR-positive but without symptoms were not infectious.
> Most people who don’t have symptoms, of course, are not infected. So the likelihood of someone who is not noticeably sick actually being infected and infectious was exceedingly rare. This means that much of the actions we were told—or compelled—to take, including an acceptance of all those closed or half-empty schools, had little to no benefit.
1. Can we really sweep away all the evidence of asymptomatic spread because of a "special PCR test" years after the fact? We had a lot of good reasons to believe this at the time, and none of them are engaged with here.
2. If asymptomatic people rarely spread COVID and it spread anyway, that means that symptomatic people were going out in public and spreading it. Even though they were getting plenty of messaging not to do this. That means that symptomatic people don't cooperate with public health measures enough to slow the spread, either because they did not understand their symptoms or didn't care. So what do you do, other than require masks by default? What does this change?