[pcthrowaway]

I don't personally know anyone who has definitely not had COVID. I know some people who suspect they had it, but couldn't or didn't get tested at the time. Everyone else I know confirmed they had it, some with symptoms and some without.

It's possible some significant percentage of people had it, but don't know they had it due to lack of symptoms and no positive test, I'll give you that.

I doubt the percentage of people who has never had it at all is over 1% though, I'd guess closer to 0.01-0.1%

[Izkata]

> but don't know they had it due to lack of symptoms and no positive test

Let's try not to be lazy with language: If they had no symptoms, then they didn't have COVID-19, the disease defined by a combination of its cause and symptoms.

[pcthrowaway]

Are you suggesting symptom-free people who still tested positive didn't actually have it?

Because I suspect for every asymptomatic person who only know they had it due to a positive test (maybe they were being cautious following a possible exposure), there are more asymptomatic people who never thought to get tested, and therefore don't know they had it.

[Izkata]

They were infected with SARS-CoV-2, they didn't get COVID-19.

I've poked at it on and off for years, but it does really annoy me how people mean the first when they say the second. It's been so bad for so long that few people actually understood Pfizer's press release for their vaccine back in 2020, which did distinguish between the two terms. Ended up in pretty regular arguments with people claiming "Pfizer said..." when Pfizer said no such thing, they just didn't understand what Pfizer did say. This includes media and politicians (not that I was arguing with them, but that they were also wrong and people were using them as sources).

[pcthrowaway]

You're splitting hairs here.

I live in Canada, where pharmacies have been giving out free "COVID-19 antigen" tests, which initially were required to take for people who either had symptoms of COVID-19 or had been in contact with other people who had tested positive, even if they didn't have symptoms.

I took a look at the test kit right now, and it doesn't make this distinction; whether or not you're symptomatic, the test tells you whether you have likely been infected with COVID-19 if you test positive for COVID-19 antigens. Let me read you some of what's on the box:

> If you do not have symptoms of COVID-19, you will need at least two tests per person.

> COVID-19 Antigen self-test for infection detection

> in-vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of COVID-19

From the instruction booklet included:

> If your first or second test is positive, then proteins from the virus that causes COVID-19 have been found in your specimen and you likely have COVID-19

It does insinuate that there's a possibility you could test positive and still not have COVID-19, but there's no indication that this is related to whether or not you're symptomatic. Everything about the packaging and instructions indicates to me that if you test positive, you likely have COVID-19, even if you're asymptomatic

[Izkata]

On a consumer product? That's called marketing, and is one of the results of what I'm complaining about. It reinforces the misunderstanding.

[spywaregorilla]

You're going to need to define "had it" then. Symptomatically? Definitely not. Exposed to the virus in any quantity, even if the body defeated it without any particular specific response? Maybe.

I would say half of my social circle never got COVID. A decent chunk of which had to test frequently throughout the whole thing due to the circumstances of their work. I never had it.