Whereas your denials are based on FUD. If you can show a single example of transmission without symptoms, the party line is disproven. Go to it. Otherwise you're just reacting because you don't like it, not on scientific grounds.

And herein lies the problem.

Circular arguments - appeals back to "science". And we both know the other general system of philosophy that's often characterized by circular arguments and immediate appeals back to "XYZ".

I am not saying I have a single documented example of transmission without symptoms. I don't possess all the necessary data. and I dare say you don't either. Hate to start tossing around cliches, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

(And I'm now going to offer an opinion: given the online attempts to remove Kaci's association with the CDC, coupled with the recent admission from the CDC that vaccination/autism studies were falsified years ago....I would have serious reservations about offering an absolute statement from a large data collection anyway. Again, that is an OPINION I am offering. When people remove/withhold information, it calls into question their motives. I still view vaccinations as generally very safe, though it's becoming apparent that the CDC was trying to get away with making statements closer to absolute. And that is the danger of absolute statements. )

I'm going back to the original statement - "no symptoms/fever - zero risk of transmission". That's mixing approximations with an absolute. It might satisfy you as "pro-science" but I think I've sufficiently poked a few small holes in the logic. But relax, transmission of something through those is still quite low. :)

Honestly, I don't understand the continued doubling down. Doubling down is a drinking game, didn't you know that? :)