I keep hearing and reading people saying this, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Granted, I am no specialist or expert in infectious diseases but let's think this through logically. If you had covid-19 and recovered without any special medicines, then you should have the antibodies to make you immune to covid-19, at least for a period of time. how long that time is remains to be seen. But our bodies don't tend to toss out antibodies have a month of making them.
If covid-19 becomes a virus that is able to reinfect a person after he/she has created the antibodies for it, still has them, and still is unable to defend against it, then afaik it will be the first virus of its kind and extremely more dangerous than anything we've ever faced.
i did. But i didn’t have symptoms till well after. My GF works at Brooklyn Hospital (and didn’t go to cup match). She had symptoms first, must have given it to me. That hospital is a war zone.
That a hole sat next to me. Glad i didn’t get in your car after the game! Mama said never get into a Car with strange men with mustaches. Might catch a virus!
I keep hearing and reading people saying this, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Granted, I am no specialist or expert in infectious diseases but let's think this through logically. If you had covid-19 and recovered without any special medicines, then you should have the antibodies to make you immune to covid-19, at least for a period of time. how long that time is remains to be seen. But our bodies don't tend to toss out antibodies have a month of making them.
If covid-19 becomes a virus that is able to reinfect a person after he/she has created the antibodies for it, still has them, and still is unable to defend against it, then afaik it will be the first virus of its kind and extremely more dangerous than anything we've ever faced.
Exactly. Yes, it’s possible COVID-19 is unlike almost any other virus on the planet, but it’s not very likely.
The interesting question is whether it’s more like Chicken Pox, where a single good exposure gives you lifetime immunity, or the flu, which mutates quickly enough that the immunity fades within a couple of years.
30% exposure isn’t close to herd immunity. 80%+ is considered herd immunity with 90% being the desired amount. A city need 4/5 or 9/10 people immune to cut the spread, especially for a virus so easily passed - this fcker makes up for its lower mortality rate with a higher rate of infection, the scatter-shot/deluge approach, so it’s still killing at a high number simply because it’s tested the waters on such a large swathe of society.
Where NYC is now, if 30% is the actual amount, is a dangerous area because of the false sense of security people have of guessing they’re ok but not actually knowing with so little testing taking place. Already, I see people disregarding social distancing because they’re wearing a mask. I saw four people in the local grocery store yesterday without masks on while everybody else was diligently wearing them - when accosted, they say they’re fine and I/others already have ours on so why worry.
The number I’ve seen thrown around for COVID is 50%. Not sure how much confidence there is in that, but some of this is the lack of a strict definition for what it means. I was using that term to mean getting retransmission below 1.0x, so that the virus will die out on its own, even if it will spread a little along the way. 80-90% is almost certainly above the threshold for that.
The important point is that this isn’t all-or-nothing. As the portion of immune people in a population gets larger, the virus’ spread becomes slower. 30% is a lot. A virus is not going to spread through a community with that level of resistance anything close to the speed it goes through a novel community (i.e. one with little or no exposure).
The number I’ve seen thrown around for COVID is 50%. Not sure how much confidence there is in that, but some of this is the lack of a strict definition for what it means. I was using that term to mean getting retransmission below 1.0x, so that the virus will die out on its own, even if it will spread a little along the way. 80-90% is almost certainly above the threshold for that.
The important point is that this isn’t all-or-nothing. As the portion of immune people in a population gets larger, the virus’ spread becomes slower. 30% is a lot. A virus is not going to spread through a community with that level of resistance anything close to the speed it goes through a novel community (i.e. one with little or no exposure).
That a hole sat next to me. Glad i didn’t get in your car after the game! Mama said never get into a Car with strange men with mustaches. Might catch a virus!
NBER Working Paper by an MIT economist on the role the subway played in the NYC outbreak. Very strong correlation between disease spread and trip length, and with the timeline. For example, the curve flattened in Manhattan 2 weeks after that borough decreased subway use by 65%. but the author acknowledges this study cannot demonstrate causation.
Also, continuing to run the subways after the general shut down, but on reduced schedule, made things worse, as the few remaining passengers were packed together.
MTA workers have an infection rate 3x the worst zip code in the CIty (East Elmhurst 11370).
You really should have stopped right there. Bottom line is that people who ARE specialists and experts in infectious diseases are not yet confident that there is meaningful immunity.
How can you think your back-of-the-envelope logic and knowledge of infectious diseases trumps that?
You really should have stopped right there. Bottom line is that people who ARE specialists and experts in infectious diseases are not yet confident that there is meaningful immunity.
How can you think your back-of-the-envelope logic and knowledge of infectious diseases trumps that?
I don’t believe that’s an accurate description of what medical professionals are thinking.
There is a strong presumption that there is meaningful immunity for those who have recovered from COVID. They just haven’t proven that’s the case or been able to determine how long that lasts.
I don’t believe that’s an accurate description of what medical professionals are thinking.
There is a strong presumption that there is meaningful immunity for those who have recovered from COVID. They just haven’t proven that’s the case or been able to determine how long that lasts.
Except for the cases in China and South Korea where people have been reinfected.
To date, there are zero completed studies on this and the plasma use is moving forward simply on historical anecdotes/science from past viruses and not on anything proven during Covid-19.
We all hope it eventually is proven true, but it hasn’t yet.
Except for the cases in China and South Korea where people have been reinfected.
To date, there are zero completed studies on this and the plasma use is moving forward simply on historical anecdotes/science from past viruses and not on anything proven during Covid-19.
We all hope it eventually is proven true, but it hasn’t yet.
It seems the majority of the experts believe those re-infections were simply because of prior false negatives. South Korea rolled out tests very rapidly, but the problem is those tests were incredibly unreliable, leading to these kinds of troubles. Lab studies indicate successful immunity at least, but we probably won't know conclusively for some time after extensive testing is done.
It seems the majority of the experts believe those re-infections were simply because of prior false negatives. South Korea rolled out tests very rapidly, but the problem is those tests were incredibly unreliable, leading to these kinds of troubles. Lab studies indicate successful immunity at least, but we probably won't know conclusively for some time after extensive testing is done.
Yeah, my buddy who got his PhD studying infectious diseases was very wary of the testing that was being done in South Korea from the outset (and some testing performed elsewhere). When they announced all those re-testing positive, he's been adamant that the testing was never good. I've copied his fb post on this here:
"Seriously, did I not say this was going to happen?
THE TEST IS INHERENTLY FLAWED. It looks for viral RNA, NOT infectious virus. By looking for viral RNA and not knowing how much of it correlates with an active infection, we are essentially guessing. Furthermore, the CDC is only using the test results (not combining it with clinical symptoms) to diagnose and count a COVID case. This is ridiculous. It is highly possible that these people that are testing positive "again" never had an infection in the first place. I really would like to see the data on viral RNA amounts in asymptomatic patients. But with the movement to point-of-care, 15 minute, qualitative tests, I'm afraid we are going to lose that data.
Ugh, I feel like I've been screaming at the wall this entire time."
And for further context on the above, he had actually posted this on his fb back on March 10th. I'm putting this one in a spoiler since its a long one.
"The current way of testing for a virus is through real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR or qPCR). qPCR looks for the presence of viral nucleic acids, such as DNA or RNA (for coronavirus, we look for viral RNA). To do this, we use a complementary strand of nucleic acids called a primer (Biology class coming back now? Remember the bases, A C T G?) that can recognize and bind to the viral RNA. Through the magic that is polymerase chain reaction, the viral RNA is then amplified and we can use a 'best-fit-curve' to determine how much RNA was in the sample in the first place. This essentially tells us the amount of viral RNA present in a human sample.
The probable issue with the original US testing kits was an issue with these primers. Primers need to be incredibly specific to the viral RNA you are looking to detect, to ensure you are only amplifying and detecting the virus you want, or else you are going to bind to and amplify the wrong strands of RNA and thus create false positives. It can be a very technically challenging thing to do in a human sample where other nucleic acids are constantly floating around. This has been fixed now, the right primers to be used have been identified, and accurate testing kits are finally getting to labs around the country.
Another issue is the test itself. Remember we are looking for viral RNA in this test to determine if the virus is there or not. But there are limitations. qPCR is a quantitative test and can be fairly accurate in suggesting an infection if viral RNA is present above a certain level. This is precisely why we use it as a rapid diagnostic. However, this threshold, like the case fatality rate right now, is a moving target and we likely will not be able to complete the required studies to establish an accurate cutoff until we have more data. Also, the mere PRESENCE of viral RNA does not necessarily mean there is INFECTIOUS virus. For example, when an infection is in remission, the viral 'capsules' will be destroyed and viral RNA contained within the capsule will be floating in the body for some time after (how long, we still don't know). So it is possible you can be testing someone, find viral RNA from a previous infection or just from exposure to the virus, but not an actual productive infection. This may lead again to false positives, and unnecessary extended quarantines and panic. It is possible that some people are being told they have the virus, when they never actually had an active infection.
You won't actually have confirmatory proof that you had an infection until you do some sort of serum (blood) test weeks later to see if you developed antibodies against the virus, which only occurs after prolonged exposure to the virus. Obviously, weeks later is too long to wait when trying to stop the virus from spreading in real time.
This is not to say the test doesn't work well (it does for the most part) or to not believe test results. However, we should be clear about the limitations of our technology right now, but no one wants to explain this nuance. I had to deal with this myself for years in my own experiments during my thesis work and it requires such technical expertise to handle."
The latest episode of Science Vs also covered this as well (love this podcast).
There doesn't seem to be much strong evidence IMO (based on what I've read and heard from sources and people I trust on this, not based on any scientific knowledge of my own), that really is suggesting people who have actually recovered are once again re-infected.
I don’t believe that’s an accurate description of what medical professionals are thinking.
There is a strong presumption that there is meaningful immunity for those who have recovered from COVID. They just haven’t proven that’s the case or been able to determine how long that lasts.
um..
what I said: If you had covid-19 and recovered without any special medicines, then you should have the antibodies to make you immune to covid-19, at least for a period of time. how long that time is remains to be seen.
what you said: people who ARE specialists and experts in infectious diseases are not yet confident that there is meaningful immunity
Wouldn't "how long that time (period of immunity) remains to be seen" be the determining factor of how meaningful the immunity is?
All I'm saying is if our naturally created antibodies for covid-19 do NOT provide any decent time period of immunity, then it's a scary thought and would mean a typical vaccine would essentially be useless.
Except for the cases in China and South Korea where people have been reinfected.
To date, there are zero completed studies on this and the plasma use is moving forward simply on historical anecdotes/science from past viruses and not on anything proven during Covid-19.
We all hope it eventually is proven true, but it hasn’t yet.
The cases in south korea are believed to not be reinfection but are relapses. the #1 expert in S Korea explained it one of his interviews. in summary, he explained the covid test works by looking for the virus in the body, but it can only see the virus if there is a threshold number of copies in the body to return a positive result. otherwise, it will return a negative result. he explained, based on their research, they believe people who have been treated had their number of covid copies reduced to a point where the test was unable to detect it, giving a negative result. the patient were then discharged to go home, where they no longer were treated with medicines that presumably were the cause of the virus's reduction moreso than the person's own immune system. without medicines, the virus begins attacking the body again, making more copies of itself resulting in symptoms and a positive test result. but in the end, it is still the same virus infection.
Again, this is what they currently believe based on the information they have. It could change. I am in no way trying to argue that reinfection is impossible. Just sharing information. the more we know the better.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
