Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
As stated in the intial paragraph of this piece the role that a and pre symptomatic people may exert and assessing that influence "on outbreaks is challenging.".
The authors present assertions, implications and modelling to support their position along with meta-analyses.
While providing a number of example to support their position it avoids certain anomalies. For instance, in the testing process - PCR or lateral flow. If PCR what CT threshold has been applied, etc.
To add to this debate, I would like to bring to them and your readers attention a very large study, in fact surely the largest study to date from Wuhan
"Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China " published in Nature invloving a cohort of 9,899,828. to quote ...
"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. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
I hope they find this addition to their ongoing assessments helpful.