WHO says recovery from Covid may not prevent reinfection

[rogerfederer]

I hurt my wrist this weekend. Do you have any experience in distal radius fractures?

I did note your usual ungrammatical drunken defense of that Melenaus twat in the thread mentioned last night. You didn't defend him once, but numerous times. My highlighting the availability of the thread surrounded the fact some other personal information from other people emerged and was linkable elsewhere from what appears to be someone that is a sociopath. Much like yourself.

As I was reading the 25 odd pages I was struck that you may be he. Thus I am sure you can fix your own risk, or damage it, as you did with the that poor sod 12 years ago.

[ladymuck]

I am still recovering from the virus. I lost a close family friend. I do not want to go through this hell again.

Sorry for your loss.

[Elliegirl]

Thanks Ladymuck, this virus feels like a roll of the dice. You can be perfectly healthy beforehand and still end up dead. To those saying it's like the flu...I've had the flu. I've had Covid-19. They are not the same, trust me.

[Old Greg]

Thanks Ladymuck, this virus feels like a roll of the dice. You can be perfectly healthy beforehand and still end up dead. To those saying it's like the flu...I've had the flu. I've had Covid-19. They are not the same, trust me.

Sorry to hear your news.

[Elliegirl]

Thanks OG. I was checking out Twitter this morning and one of the trends was 'RIP Mark'. A guy that was chatting away on Twitter a few days ago is now dead. He thought he was going to survive it. It's incredibly hard to make people stay at home after all this time, I get that, but it's so important that people take all the precautions they can if they do go out. It's not just yourself you are putting at risk.

[LondonManc]

Thanks Ladymuck, this virus feels like a roll of the dice. You can be perfectly healthy beforehand and still end up dead. To those saying it's like the flu...I've had the flu. I've had Covid-19. They are not the same, trust me.

My condolences. My father is in a high risk group due to the Crohn's medication that he's on. Had a chat with him from the end of the drive but it's not the same as sitting down and enjoying a chat over a coffee or a couple of beers.

We've lost a family member and a couple of friends too. It's certainly nothing like the flu; while it may hasten the end for those who were probably on their way out anyway (for example Eddie Large), as you say, it's ability to debilitate let alone kill seemingly healthy folk is scary.

[Hobosapien]

I have friends who are doctors. They are now seeing people who were either hospitalised and tested or had more serious symptoms but were not tested and stayed at home, but with the typical more obviou symptoms of a sore throat initially, headache for days, followed by tight chest, cough, returning to the NHS now with another case, 2 months down the line.

I say: the jury is out. The NHS have been slow to react on this because they've ignore the experience of Italy and China who have similarly reported people returning to healthcare after disappearing for a month or two. Researchers from China, for all the CCP's fault in this, were quick to highlight that viral load was later detected in a far higher quantity than when the patients were discharged from hospital after 4 negative tests over a few days.

It is likely that the viral load is very low, undetectable by the PCR test used, from which people are ok for a month or two and then the viral load increases again. The reason this is worrying is because in that time these patients are likely to have been at home recovering under a lockdown scenario in which they aren't likely to have been out working in stressful jobs. In ideal conditions to rest and recuperate their viral load has increased dramatically to the extent they are now moderately or severely unwell again. This is the worrying, as it means that this promised antibody test sounds, to me, like a load of tulip. What percentage of people who now feel better have a very low undetectable viral load and can be expected to return with higher viral load at some point down the line? As the UK is rather introspective, we won't know for months, but from what I am hearing up here it looks as if we may have a second wave of patients already considered to have had it and gotten better, nevermind those who haven't had it and are subject to this much talked about second wave.

If I'm understanding the gist of your info, there are many people thinking they are getting better yet have some low virus load activity that later ramps up (overcomes the immune system) so they get it worse than before and represent for treatment?

In that scenario surely the 'currently got it test' will detect the low virus activity stage even if the 'have had it test' is unreliable. So the solution is to test, test, test, and only assume a person has fully recovered when multiple negative tests over a period of time are achieved.

Hopefully at some point home testing or speedy (within minutes rather than hours) local testing will be possible to fully get on top of outbreaks before they become uncontainable. e.g. daily testing kids before sending them to school, or testing oneself before going out or to work.

[Old Greg]

My condolences. My father is in a high risk group due to the Crohn's medication that he's on. Had a chat with him from the end of the drive but it's not the same as sitting down and enjoying a chat over a coffee or a couple of beers.

We've lost a family member and a couple of friends too. It's certainly nothing like the flu; while it may hasten the end for those who were probably on their way out anyway (for example Eddie Large), as you say, it's ability to debilitate let alone kill seemingly healthy folk is scary.

Sorry to hear that.

[shaunbhoy]

I'm going back to work on Monday after > 1 month off.

So you're officially identifying as one of the weak and vulnerable.

No surprises there then. You always were the weediest pigeon in the flock.

[rogerfederer]

If I'm understanding the gist of your info, there are many people thinking they are getting better yet have some low virus load activity that later ramps up (overcomes the immune system) so they get it worse than before and represent for treatment?

In that scenario surely the 'currently got it test' will detect the low virus activity stage even if the 'have had it test' is unreliable. So the solution is to test, test, test, and only assume a person has fully recovered when multiple negative tests over a period of time are achieved.

Hopefully at some point home testing or speedy (within minutes rather than hours) local testing will be possible to fully get on top of outbreaks before they become uncontainable. e.g. daily testing kids before sending them to school, or testing oneself before going out or to work.

That's correct, yes. They initially erred on the side of caution with people who have claimed to have it before and then finally presenting at a hospital. It's important to remember that a few weeks ago they couldn't get a test and NHS24 would have told them to stay at home, as the hospitals were very busy four to eight weeks ago. At that time a call to the GP resulted in being told to call NHS24 for any suspect Covid19 cases.

What is not yet fully understood is that children in particular may be asymptomatic for weeks on end. As the lockdown in each UK country is gradually wound down I suspect we're going to see quite a lot of infections again, but of course less than a few weeks ago when many hospitals were very busy.

The "current got it" test is called a PCR test and is conducted via a swab. There is an error rate in this test, a false negative, due to this method, varying between 60-80% . There are no false positives with this test, but there are false negatives. This means that many people will test negative when they do indeed have the virus; this is not simply a sign of low viral load but can be the nature of the virus itself, as it may be in the throat and sinuses but can also migrate to unusual areas, including the kidneys.

This ultimately means that the current detection test is unreliable due to the method of swabbing, but even then also has a high false negative rate regardless. Once I found this out I realised this will be going on for a long time until another type of test can test more accurately for the presence of the virus, ideally with a low negligible false negative rate.

It's not ideal in general for the virus to be hard to detect, but for removal of lockdown restrictions it's really quite awful. At first I thought our lockdown measures being more lax than Italy and Spain were a positive, but in reality it became obvious that contact in supermarkets and such means that if Spain sees minimal cases in the next month then we may in fact see a steam of higher cases, as people still went out and were in close contact in core areas, such as supermarkets.

Hopefully not, but having witnessed the behavior of people when out in supermarkets and knowing staff who are now off sick I suspect we're in for the long haul with this.