For me the raw data does not tell the whole story. Whilst I accept the numbers paint an interesting picture and I am curious about what's going on, I am mindful of what's being written in several places about
viral load.
If you have received a low viral load there seems to be an increased chance that your immune system can cope with the infection without intervention. But of course you would test positive if subjected to a swab test.
This muddies the waters because you may (have a low viral load and may) be symptomless and would not represent a case, or you may be symptomless with a high viral load if you're naturally somehow immune.
If the concept of viral load being important is accepted then questions follow.
Was lockdown successful in containing the spread of the virus, such that the number (and severity) of new infections reduced, - I think it was.
As we start moving around, are the current measures of face masks, social distancing and improved hygiene working to reduce the number of infections where a high viral load is transmitted? It can probably be argued that they are.
In short, is one symptomless ( with a low viral load) because of the measures that have been put in place or in spite of them? That is a question we still don't know the answer to and it does not seem to be addressed by the article.