Coronavirus Pandemic
- Chicago, IL
There's no evidence that it does provide immunity though. Not the way other diseases do. Screenshot taken from the University of Maryland.
Coronavirus Immunity
Learn what we currently know about coronavirus immunity, how coronavirus herd immunity could work and what antibody testing can tell you.
www.umms.org
Attachments
-
Screenshot_20201123-075019_Chrome.jpg
- Baltimore, MD
My parents both had it back in August with mild symptoms. My mom tested positive again about 2 weeks ago and because it had been 94 days (4 days past some seemingly arbitrary 90 day timeframe), it was treated as a second case and she was told to quarantine a second time and forced to miss work. She had no symptoms this time around (though I know people can transmit without presenting symptoms). I wish there would have been some kind of transparency regarding the second positive test, like what's the "viral load" to trigger a positive test, was it lower than her "viral load" the first time? Is there even a threshold for that for people who tested positive before? I'm not too educated on how these tests work.There's no evidence that it does provide immunity though. Not the way other diseases do. Screenshot taken from the University of Maryland.
Coronavirus Immunity
Learn what we currently know about coronavirus immunity, how coronavirus herd immunity could work and what antibody testing can tell you.
I'm all for taking this seriously, but there's still so much we don't know about it and so much that's hard to account for. Just don't assume that people won't test positive again just because they've had it once already as it seems to be an inexact science at this point.
- Chicago, IL
I think we're on the same side here. I posted that to show that the idea of immunity after the fact is questionable because we don't know for certain.
Some people test positive for a long time, but there are also cases of people testing negative then positive again. Just because a team has it doesn't mean they'll be immune, as was suggested in the post I originally replied to.
More people are getting COVID-19 twice, suggesting immunity wanes quickly in some
- Baltimore, MD
Yeah, we're on the same side. I was just giving a personal anecdote to show people that just because you've tested positive and had it once doesn't mean you're immune to (at least) testing positive again and having to quarantine a second time.
The tests we have right now, at least none of the ones I've seen, have viral loads. Its a positive or negative. There are three types of tests we have right now:
1) PCR- basically it detects viral DNA. Theoretically we could figure out viral titers with this, but with a nasopharyngeal swab... but it would probably be a useless number. Viral titers are useful for blood stream infections (like HIV, HCV) but not so much for airway infections.
2) ELISA- Testing for viral proteins directly
The two above test for active (or "recent" infections. 90 days might be a relatively arbitrary time frame, but it could also be based on data that I haven't seen).
3) Antibody test- this is a test to see if you've developed an immune response. This does NOT necessarily mean you are immune. You probably are. But its not a gamble I would take at this stage.
94 days is a significant delay between positive tests, but it is seen. It could represent a second infection or it could represent residual viral particles from the prior infection. There have been a few proven 2nd infections, but its an arduous process to PROVE, and something thats only been done to add to the medical literature on the topic. But we have seen multiple cases of true 2nd infections in immunocompetent (healthy) people.
The unfortunate reality is that we know very, very little still. Even with all the gains we've made in the past year, each step we take is a totally new step forward.
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Johns Creek, GA
I tested positive during an unrelated emergency room visit right before Christmas. My son (who lives at home) tested the negative the next day. I never had any symptoms and tested negative last week, so we're guessing it's a false positive. The worst part about it was I had to self-isolate (mostly...) from my family over Christmas until I was certain there were no symptoms.
BTW, the hospital was about at capacity. The ICU was full, their observation unit was full, and I had to spend the night "under observation" in the ER which isn't really equipped for that. Pretty scary stuff, really. If someone had come in with a heart attack or significant trauma they might not have had staff and beds. I felt bad enough being there for vertigo.
BTW, the hospital was about at capacity. The ICU was full, their observation unit was full, and I had to spend the night "under observation" in the ER which isn't really equipped for that. Pretty scary stuff, really. If someone had come in with a heart attack or significant trauma they might not have had staff and beds. I felt bad enough being there for vertigo.
- Washington State
This University is Using Saliva Testing to Monitor the Spread of COVID-19
One out of 50 Covid-19 tests in the U.S. is processed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Here's how its researchers are tracking the...
www.facebook.com
- Houston, Texas
That's interesting. What little I've seen about reinfection suggests that reinfection comes with reduced severity of symptoms, not worse, due to antibodies.
With the vaccines rolling out now, will be interesting to see what happens in 6-12 months re: antibodies/immunity.
EDIT: hope both you and your friend feel better soon.
I'm doing fine now, thank you
Last team standing wins the league? This is going to be chaotic. Why don't the schools try to get the vaccine now, I know it sounds kind of selfish but I think the NBA was going to try to do that.
I would support vaccination of pro and major college athletes as a national morale booster and part of the financial recovery. 5 percent of US has received at least one injection, vacconating NFL, MBL, NCAA, NHL will be a drop in the bucket of all vaccines. But likely not popular amongst the 60% of population that wants the population.
What percentage of players do you suppose would take it?
Substantially higher than the population at large for multiple, and intertwined, reasons.
I have very mixed feelings about granting athletes early access to a limited vaccine supply.
People on the front line and those with health issues in real need should be first. All the above should remain where they would normally be in line. They also have much more control over their environment right now.
There are people who need to support their families who have not yet gotten a vaccine who are at higher risk than those mentioned above. They don't have a choice but to go to work. Those above, could take 3 months off (or delay) of the season if they chose to and would not be any worse off.
I think 60% of the population is a huge stretch. At the personal level, I imagine everyone would put their elderly family members, neighbors and friends, and those working in healthcare well ahead of athletes. We're not there yet.
Prioritizing athletes: Likely to receive a NO vote from the Age 50+ crowd across the US........
It should be a NO from anyone who is concerned for any loved one Age 50+ or with an underlying health issue.
If you could vaccinate athletes and use it as an advertising campaign to get more people vaccinated then I think you have a good idea. There are a large number of anti vaxxers anyway and a lot more people with a lot of questions and concerns about the vaccine leading them to trend towards not receiving (the technology to develop it, the rapid timeframe, etc). Get Lebron, Mahomes, Mike Trout, Coach K, Saban etc to receive and endorse the vaccine and you might start chipping down those walls that stop people from getting it. When I was at U of I I did an individual seminar with Dr. Brian Quick to sort data for his study about health messaging, particularly vaccine messaging (at the time the controversial vaccine was HPV). People already research the best ways to roll this stuff out, particularly to target demographics. We need to put it in to practice.
Secondarily you vaccinate as a morale booster as mentioned above, because sports lend some normalcy to our everyday lives. More normalcy + more people who get the vaccines without issues probably also leads to more people receiving the vaccine.
Secondarily you vaccinate as a morale booster as mentioned above, because sports lend some normalcy to our everyday lives. More normalcy + more people who get the vaccines without issues probably also leads to more people receiving the vaccine.
For those who aren’t following closely, the B117 is the UK variant that is much more (70%) transmissible. It’s not considered more dangerous, just easier to spread. The vaccine is believed to be equally effective against it. Some of the other variants around the world are not likely to be covered by the vaccine. This thing is far from over.
As much as I am a fan of sports, there is no way you can pick out a particular recreational / spectator activity above any other. Theatre, actors, producers, film crew, etc might be much more important to alot of people in this country. Why should sports fans be prioritized over any other? And actually, as a sports fan, I couldn't really care less about what the NBA is doing until playoffs. And, MLB? Again, boring until the playoffs to me. So, the issue becomes - why prioritize my desires over anyone else's?
Let's focus on saving lives first, and use containment/cautious measures, or delay to play sports until those players natural time has come.
Let's focus on saving lives first, and use containment/cautious measures, or delay to play sports until those players natural time has come.
the ole ball coach
- Milford
this is news to me . please share your source & a link
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/episode-40
Dr. Osterholm has a series of podcasts on the virus. He has talked about the new variants (Brazil, South Africa, etc.) the last few episodes. There is not a definitive answer yet. He thinks its unlikely because they are so different. I suppose others may have a differing opinion and I probably should have stated that clearer.
Dr. Osterholm has a series of podcasts on the virus. He has talked about the new variants (Brazil, South Africa, etc.) the last few episodes. There is not a definitive answer yet. He thinks its unlikely because they are so different. I suppose others may have a differing opinion and I probably should have stated that clearer.