Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would researchers act as if this is not the most important question of the decade.
Should not be rocket science to determine if cured people come down with it AGAIN.
My girlfriend works in a dialysis clinic and one of there patients had Covid-19, recovered, tested negative twice, was recently tested again and tested positive, then tested negative again twice in a row a few days later.
So the question is is testing accuracy flawed? Did the patient get reinfected and recover in a few days? There just no clear answers yet.
My girlfriend works in a dialysis clinic and one of there patients had Covid-19, recovered, tested negative twice, was recently tested again and tested positive, then tested negative again twice in a row a few days later.
So the question is is testing accuracy flawed? Did the patient get reinfected and recover in a few days? There just no clear answers yet.
And are the same tests administered in exactly the same way each time? Is there possible contamination from another source, perhaps someone who handles the equipment?
My girlfriend works in a dialysis clinic and one of there patients had Covid-19, recovered, tested negative twice, was recently tested again and tested positive, then tested negative again twice in a row a few days later.
So the question is is testing accuracy flawed? Did the patient get reinfected and recover in a few days? There just no clear answers yet.
You are right! There are no clear answers yet. However, there have been other reports like that with the latest one coming out of Israel.
Common sense tells us that the only route we have out of this is to let healthy people catch the virus whilst those most vulnerable are protected as much as possible until it weakens or dies out like previous coronvirus's have in the past.
SARS died out. MERS and the coronaviruses that cause colds have not. There is no guarantee that SARS-CoV-2 will either weaken or die out. As more people get it, there will be fewer who are susceptible and the number of new cases will decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
False positive?...A second infection?....or STILL positive?
When an infection involves only a few people, it's relatively easy and effective to identify cases, identify contacts and to quarantine them....But that becomes more difficult and less effective as the number of cases grows until you pass a certain critical, "magic" number where that will no longer work. Complexity limits the logistics.
This epidemic jumped on us with infection rates well above that magic number right from the start.
Once an epidemic (uncontrollable spread) is in place, the goal should not be to minimize the rate of infections, but to maximize the rate of immunity.....
But high infection rates means bad headlines and bureaucrats hate that, hence, we continue to pursue a futile course of action. They want to look like they're "doing something" even if it's the wrong thing to do.
Whether immunity comes from natural infection or from artificial vaccine, you don't catch the same common cold or influenza a second time. There's no particular reason to think this novel virus won't confer lasting immunity to this strain like all it's cousins do. Too much journalistic hype for propaganda purposes.
Reinfection does happen with the cold-causing coronaviruses, though. This is a thirty year old report on experimental coronavirus infection.
"After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechGromit
My girlfriend works in a dialysis clinic and one of there patients had Covid-19, recovered, tested negative twice, was recently tested again and tested positive, then tested negative again twice in a row a few days later.
So the question is is testing accuracy flawed? Did the patient get reinfected and recover in a few days? There just no clear answers yet.
It appears likely that the test is picking up remnants of virus that is no longer able to replicate or spread. It order to show either a persistent low grade infection or a true reinfection someone is going to have to actually culture the virus to see whether it is "alive" or do genetic studies to see whether someone has an infection with one virus and then an infection with one that is genetically different.
This is still a new virus. Less than a year old. When it comes to duration of immunity there's a lot we don't know at this point.
This isn't a new study, it was published a week ago. That's not new around here...and the rest of your input is just rehashing the we don't know everything so we can't know anything line.
Reinfection does happen with the cold-causing coronaviruses
It does tend to be a milder infection, though. If this is where we're going with COVID, it may become a lot less harmful as time goes by. Maybe no one's going to be immune for life, but if it becomes less deadly, good enough.
Or maybe it's going to be like the chicken pox. Not that bad if you catch it as a child (other than the risk of shingles), but can hospitalize you if you're unlucky enought to catch it as an adult. Even if there's not going to be a reliable vaccine, eventually most people will have had it as kids, with milder symptoms. Still better to have a vaccine than not, because who wants shingles?
It does tend to be a milder infection, though. If this is where we're going with COVID, it may become a lot less harmful as time goes by. Maybe no one's going to be immune for life, but if it becomes less deadly, good enough.
Or maybe it's going to be like the chicken pox. Not that bad if you catch it as a child (other than the risk of shingles), but can hospitalize you if you're unlucky enought to catch it as an adult. Even if there's not going to be a reliable vaccine, eventually most people will have had it as kids, with milder symptoms. Still better to have a vaccine than not, because who wants shingles?
Many antibody studies to date. A lot of conjecture by researchers since a conclusive answer to this is not yet known.
I agree with you, but the evidence is mounting that the duration of immunity is probably measured, at best, in terms of a year or two. We won't really know until the results of the long-term trials with large sample sizes are completed. In the meantime, new vaccines could also be developed, and that will only prolong the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of any particular vaccine.
Under these circumstances, it seems prudent for us not to let our guard(s) down and continue to social distance, wear masks, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
