Yesterday we told you about this bit of good news after a WHO researcher said the asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is “very rare”:
Correction: Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is "very rare," the WHO says. https://t.co/pRihr1ZMxE
— CNBC (@CNBC) June 8, 2020
But the researcher, Maria Van Kerkhove, the clarified that there’s a difference between “symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission” of the virus:
1/2@WHO recently published a summary of transmission of #COVID19, incl. symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission
See page 2 of?https://t.co/2OJ2pLT5Iu
In this summary, we state: "Comprehensive studies…
— Maria Van Kerkhove (@mvankerkhove) June 8, 2020
2/2 … on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms
— Maria Van Kerkhove (@mvankerkhove) June 8, 2020
additional points:
In these data, it is impt to breakdown truly asymptomatic vs pre-symptomatic vs mildly symptomatic
also to note that the % reported or estimated to be "asymptomatic" is not the same as the % that are asymptomatic that actually transmit
— Maria Van Kerkhove (@mvankerkhove) June 8, 2020
Her point is that the way we, as non-scientists, think of asymptomatic spread probably includes a lot of cases of symptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread:
Here’s a short thread from the WHO person who made the statement. It’s a little muddy, but she distinguishes between symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic ppl., and says those who never develop symptoms are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who do. https://t.co/Vj72qZMaQJ
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) June 8, 2020
They’re saying this news is “more of scientific than practical interest”:
If fully asymptomatic transmission is rare, this could impact how we monitor exposed contacts (how long to quarantine). But otherwise, it seems more of scientific than practical interest. People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly. 3/3
— Natalie E. Dean, PhD (@nataliexdean) June 8, 2020
In other words, “this may not be a very practical dividing line in real life interactions”:
.@mvankerkhove's own thread… https://t.co/dUyuwQJnif
I continue to think that the public has no way to distinguish btwn true asymptomatics and pre-symptomatics, so this may not be a very practical dividing line in real life interactions.
— Caroline Chen (@CarolineYLChen) June 8, 2020
You know, this should be directed at the WHO:
If you want to draw a distinction between patients who are truly asymptomatic (no symptoms across the entire course of disease) vs pre-symptomatic (no symptoms when they first test positive, but develop them later on), do your audience a favor & define your terms super clearly.
— Caroline Chen (@CarolineYLChen) June 8, 2020
You know, in an atmosphere where every single statement is IMPORTANT, maybe fix this?
A general comment about science communications. Scientists are rarely trained to talk to the public. It’s hard to explain complicated concepts simply. It’s easier to retreat to our familiar technical language.
— Natalie E. Dean, PhD (@nataliexdean) June 9, 2020
***
