This
ZeroHedge article expresses alarm about "stealth transmission," but jumps to a huge, unwarranted conclusion. Almost all of the sailors aboard the Roosevelt have been tested, the results showing that about 600 out of 4,800 contracted the virus. Of those, about 60% never showed any symptoms. The article assumes this is terrible news, because it means that asymptomatic transmission is a huge, scary risk.
But I don't see that the article makes any kind of case for asymptomatic transmission; it could be that nearly all the sailors who fell ill were infected by one of the 40% who did show symptoms. What's more, another reasonable interpretation is that we lucked out: we may be able to get to whatever percentage of the population is required for herd immunity--I've heard estimates from 40% to 80%--with less than half of those unlucky citizens suffering so much as a sniffle. Is it conceivable that people are contagious when asymptomatic? Sure, we haven't ruled that out, but even if it's true, they may still be much less contagious than people with symptoms, so there remains a lot of use in checking people for fevers and quarantining them when they're spotted. It's not uncommon for a virus to be slightly contagious when asymptomatic (or within a couple of days of becoming symptomatic) but to become wildly contagious when symptoms appear, so clamping down on people with symptoms is still effort well spent, along with tracing their contacts for the prior few days. We may miss some Typhoid Mary's, but that doesn't mean we're utterly helpless to use testing in combination with contract tracing. It's just not clear yet.
That means we are far from an ability to reassure people that coronavirus is perfectly risk-free, but so what? We don't need to reach zero risk. Not just the existence but the
level of risk matters when you're considering economy-crushing curative measures. A few people will be very unlucky about this pathogen; I don't want to be among them, nor do I want my loved ones or even remote acquaintances to be among them. I also don't want anyone struck by lightning, but I'm not going to ask anyone to stay inside for the rest of his life to avoid it. We need to reach a reasonable level of confidence that we know the worst damage this thing is likely to do, then take whatever steps are sensible in light of the risk. When that happens, this really will be "sort of like the flu"--or sort of like car crashes--risks to minimize, but not at the cost of the rest of our lives and society, no matter how much we grieve for the tens of thousands of people we lose every year from the irreducible risk.
Confidence at such a level is going to take some more data about transmissibility, a grasp of what it will take to reach herd immunity, and perhaps a better understanding of why hospitals in Italy were overrun but hospitals in many other countries, like ours, were not, whether because our "inequitable" health systems are better at handling sudden emergencies, or because we're less crowded, or because doctors are getting a better handle on all kinds of potential treatments.
Update: some even weirder numbers from a
Boston homeless shelter, where 146 out of 397 residents (37%) tested positive, and 100% of the positives were asymptomatic.