Wuhan after the lockdown

An interesting study; among the findings of note:

(1)  "All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified."

(2) "The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.  Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious³, and might subsequently become symptomatic⁴. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2⁵. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious."

(I came across this via the Twitter feed of the word's dumbest journalist, Alex Berenson, who (1) didn't realize that the study shows, among other things, that lockdowns work, something dumb-dumb likes to deny [how could they not work, we know how the virus is transmitted, and it requires people to come into contact with other people; that doesn't mean lockdowns are also worth the costs]; and (2) dumb-dumb also declared that the study shows that, "Asymptomatic spread isn’t real = masking healthy people is useless," but the study shows nothing of the kind:  it shows that asymptomatic people who don't go on to develop symptoms appear not to infect others; as the study notes, we have evidence that asymptomatic people who go on to develop symptoms are infectious.)