Regardless, tracing isn't useful when high percent are asymptomatic (even if it's a bit lower than Fauci said):
You are missing the point: It involves TESTING and tracing. Absolutely tracing is important even if there are asymptomatics. Anyone who has been in contact with a known carrier is put in
quarantine (different than isolation) for 14 days, and additionally (when there are sufficient tests) is tested repeatedly. That's the whole point of testing and tracing!
When applied millions of times, this reduces R and reduces the case load. It also reduces the threshold for herd immunity, if it actually gets to that point (definitely preferably not). But an effective R of 1.1 means 9% of people being infected gives you herd immunity.
"Q Dr. Fauci, how many additional asymptomatic cases do you think there are currently in the United States? There’s 330,000 more confirmed cases. How many asymptomatic, given what we’ve learned in recent days?
DR. FAUCI: You know, we don’t know. And even among us, good friends that we are — (laughs) — we — we differ about that. I mean, it’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.
Q More than —
DR. FAUCI: Yeah. Yeah, in other words, about the people —
Q — the current level?
DR. FAUCI: Yeah, about the people that are out there. Yeah.
And trust me, that is a estimate.
I don’t have any scientific data yet to say that. You know when we’ll get the scientific data, when we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is. Then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way. Right now, we’re just guessing. "
Likely, from context, he was talking about not just asymptomatic cases - he was also talking about very mild symptoms that never never would have been reported or even really remarked upon. We need more data. 25% seems fairly possible. But it's not really an issue as long as we have sufficient testing. It just makes it harder (need more testing, and more tracing).
