Have you read the newspaper story that was pulled or the study? If you can point to the section of the study where they discuss the above point. Cheers. Thanks.This is the part I took note of..
"The asymptomatic/presymptomatic secondary attack rate is not statistically different from zero, and the confidence interval is technically 0.7 ± 4.2, resulting in a range of -3.5%-4.9%, but attack rates cannot be negative, so it is truncated at 0."
I mean even reading the above it says symptomatic cases were 18.0% with a 95% confidence interval it was between 14.2 and 22.1% and for asymptomatic cases it was 0.7% with a 95% confidence interval that it is between 0-4.9%. So basically asymptomatic cases have a possibility of being 0%.
But nothing like the twaddle written in the Alachua Chronicle by Len Cabrera who had his article pulled and removed from view.
What's your working out from the study?