No. The problem is the virus hasn't been around long enough. For example, we wont know if immunity lasts for two years, until two years from now. I think there is little evidence of reinfection so far, leading me to believe immunity lasts as least a few months. At least in the majority of people. There could always be rare outliers.
Positive *Informative* Covid News
- Thread starter madguy30
- Start date
- Status
This is a must read when discussing neutralizing antibodies.
Seattle fishing boat outbreak suggests antibodies protect against coronavirus infection
On a Seattle fishing boat where the novel coronavirus spread like wildfire, antibodies from previous infections apparently protected three crew members. The findings could be the first direct evidence that antibodies can protect people from reinfection.
www.seattletimes.com
This number is a question mark as well. I haven't been keeping as of late, but not too long ago Osterholm suggested the range for herd immunity could be anywhere from 60-95% based on other similar viruses.
But I think some of the issue is semantics. Getting to the technical definition of herd immunity probably isn't going to happen, and that's OK. It's not a binary situation between rampant spread of the virus and eradication of it. A high percentage of the population having immunity, even if below true herd immunity, in combination with good practices in hygeine, staying isolated when you have symptoms, etc. can slow the virus spread to the point where it becomes almost non-existent. So in some ways technical herd immunity, and level of immunity that are high enough to make the threat of the virus minimal can be quite different.
But in general I agree that the rates and trends suggest that there is a high enough level of immunity present that the virus is finding it more difficult to find hosts, and I think that difficulty goes well beyond just hygiene and distancing practices. NY got hit really hard early, and while they have settled into some good practices, considering population density of NYC the dropoff there cannot all be chalked up to differences in practices there vs. other places. The same goes for other countries that were hit hard early that had sharp spikes.
Is it? I haven't seen a study with high asymptomatic transmission? I have seen anecdotal accounts of it, but I have seen no scientific evidence that backs up asymptomatic spread theory.
It was certainly a worry at the outset, it is certainly still being used to force lockdowns and masks. But the science doesn't back that up, so I don't think we need to be less forceful in how we say it.
Asymptomatic Spread Responsible for Most Cases of COVID-19 in DC
A large portion of newly infected coronavirus patients in the District of Columbia contracted the disease from individuals who showed no symptoms.
thedcpost.com
Asymptomatic Spread Responsible for Most Cases of COVID-19 in DC
A large portion of newly infected coronavirus patients in the District of Columbia contracted the disease from individuals who showed no symptoms.
OOOhhhhh, if you read the article and piece together the information we have now, it is a poorly written article. They mention a birthday party where eight people got it but nobody was showing symptoms until a day after the party. It has been mentioned in several articles I've read that people will be contagious for a day or two before they start to show symptoms, hence there were symptomatic people at that party but was in the contagious phase without showing symptoms. They are skipping some very pertinent details.
Here's another one.
The coronavirus pandemic is being driven by people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s who don't know they're infected, according to WHO
"People in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are increasingly driving the spread. Many are unaware they are infected," a WHO official said.
www.businessinsider.com
And the lies the issue with this whole virus. There is so much gray area in almost every part of it that it's near impossible to see what's really happening for an average Joe. It's certain that it's serious. How serious is uncertain. We pump out numbers like 170K+ dead from coronavirus when in reality, it's 170K+ that have died with coronavirus. There have been a bunch of false positives and negatives. Sometimes masks help sometimes they don't. People who haven't been in contact with anyone for over a month get it. It lives on surfaces, then it doesn't. A lot of this isn't the fault of experts as a 5 month window isn't enough time to formulate the answer but parcing through every little thing trying to figure out what is actually going on is exhausting. Karen throws a fit if you don't wear a mask while Becky mocks you on Facebook if you do wear one.
I wish we would learn that politicizing these things individually as individuals or in the media is a very bad thing for society but we won't.
Agree, but reading the headline it gives a false impression. It is obvious that they are using the pre as asymp. Yes I did lump the pre's in with the symps in my prior post. I was more going off that the article was trying to twist it as though the people were asymp, then symp; whereas it is as you explain above.
In a dictionary definition I agree with that thought/theory. In the COVID tracking direction, I don't agree with that because the typical, on the street definition (at least with the people I am around and/or talk to) put pre-symp people in with symp people and consider asymp people to have never have knowingly experienced symptoms.
I also think that last statement is where it get messier yet. I think someone may be symptomatic but may say they were asymp because they never noticed they had a slight fever, were a little more tired than normal, or were stuffy. Heck, I've allergies kick in again because ragweed is cutting loose and I'm stuffy, small chance I could be COVID but I get these allergies at this time every year. Could someone have a fever back in July and not know, walk outside into that 95 degree oven we had and they have just thought it was hot outside although they were 99.8 degrees.
A study came out a couple weeks ago about asymptomatic viral load.
www.silive.com
Study: Asymptomatic people carry high coronavirus load; recommends isolation regardless of symptoms
The findings suggest that asymptomatic carriers of the virus have similar viral loads to those who are symptomatic.
www.silive.com
Is This Why Some People Have Milder Coronavirus Symptoms?
A new study might make you grateful for the possibly protective effect of an illness most of us love to hate.
And people reporting asymptomatic and presymptomatic interchangeably are creating a massive problem. Presymptomatic people have periods of being highly contagious and there is no disputing that. Level of contagiousness by people that are Asymptomatic, as in never showing symptoms, seems to be disputed.
The end result is lots of people that think if they are not currently showing symptoms they are not contagious
Also, on the asymptomatic transmission issue, I would assume there are a number of people who had symptoms, but didn’t admit to it after testing positive. I’m saying this because I know of two people who did exactly that.Is This Why Some People Have Milder Coronavirus Symptoms?
A new study might make you grateful for the possibly protective effect of an illness most of us love to hate.www.moneytalksnews.com
If I had to get tested and tested positive, I have no idea what I'd say. I have allergies that are present basically all summer so mild symptoms, to me, are already there. So did I have symptoms? I guess, but if I went off that I'd have to be tested non-stop.
Has anyone seen good data on the specificity of PCR tests? It seems difficult to find that information, but here is one article that describes it as "5% or lower".
The WHO has set their criteria for "reopening" at 5% or less positive cases for 14 days. Anyone else see the problem with that? If 5% of tests are "false positives" it makes it essentially impossible to have less than 5% positive tests.
Iowa has usually been between 8-12% on positive tests the last couple months. Were half of those "false"?
Iowa State's mass testing of student returning to campus came up with 2.2% positive infections (175 students total). Is it possible all of those were "false positives"? If specificity is 2% or higher, the answer is "yes".
If someone can point me to a source showing a greater than 99% specificity, I'd genuinely like to see it. I've heard almost no one talking about issues with mass testing and false positives resulting from it, so maybe I'm wrong?
The WHO has set their criteria for "reopening" at 5% or less positive cases for 14 days. Anyone else see the problem with that? If 5% of tests are "false positives" it makes it essentially impossible to have less than 5% positive tests.
Iowa has usually been between 8-12% on positive tests the last couple months. Were half of those "false"?
Iowa State's mass testing of student returning to campus came up with 2.2% positive infections (175 students total). Is it possible all of those were "false positives"? If specificity is 2% or higher, the answer is "yes".
If someone can point me to a source showing a greater than 99% specificity, I'd genuinely like to see it. I've heard almost no one talking about issues with mass testing and false positives resulting from it, so maybe I'm wrong?
This headline is really going to trigger some people.
I think it's great news that only 2.2% of the student population in campus housing. Really want to applaud the Vet diagnostic lab for their fast turn around times.
Also, it's great to see an article focus on the positive (97+% negative) rather than say "hundred tests postive as ISU returns to campus"
I think it's great news that only 2.2% of the student population in campus housing. Really want to applaud the Vet diagnostic lab for their fast turn around times.
Also, it's great to see an article focus on the positive (97+% negative) rather than say "hundred tests postive as ISU returns to campus"
Last edited:
I think there is a lot of potential for that. People with seasonal allergies, sensitive stomachs, susceptible to headaches by other stimuli, Etc. It’s really hard when the symptoms are so many, and they range from Barely noticeable to extreme. Hell, I know a guy that got tested for the hell of it because his back ached. It lasted about a day, got tested, it went away and he figured it was due to some manual work he was doing. Felt perfectly fine. Then got his positive test back.
In the asymptomatic/presymptomatic debate, I will take what the researchers give me. I don't trust any media member telling me one way or the other. Let me see the research behind it.
I believe I saw the other day, I am sure it is up the thread that USC researchers have a map of the onset of symptoms. I am sure that varies in degree, but that should help people identify earlier when they need to go into isolation.
And by no means does that mean social distancing and masks in tight quarters should go away.
My anecdotal story about a co-worker. His dad tested positive for COVID 2 weeks ago, the dad developed no symptoms until 2 days ago a cough started. The cough wasn't getting any better so they decided he better go to the doctor. Of course, he has to go to the ER, not the regular doctor because of the positive COVID test. ER admits him, tells him his cough is being caused by another virus, not COVID, but they won't test him again for COVID to confirm because it is likely it would test positive because of the other virus. So does that mean if you have a regular cold and get a COVID test you are going to get a positive result? If so how prevalent is that situation?
I believe I saw the other day, I am sure it is up the thread that USC researchers have a map of the onset of symptoms. I am sure that varies in degree, but that should help people identify earlier when they need to go into isolation.
And by no means does that mean social distancing and masks in tight quarters should go away.
My anecdotal story about a co-worker. His dad tested positive for COVID 2 weeks ago, the dad developed no symptoms until 2 days ago a cough started. The cough wasn't getting any better so they decided he better go to the doctor. Of course, he has to go to the ER, not the regular doctor because of the positive COVID test. ER admits him, tells him his cough is being caused by another virus, not COVID, but they won't test him again for COVID to confirm because it is likely it would test positive because of the other virus. So does that mean if you have a regular cold and get a COVID test you are going to get a positive result? If so how prevalent is that situation?
worldometer covid numbers looking decent, come on Texas don't mess it up.
One thing I have discovered skimming this thread...y’all read a lot of articles.
- Status
