Jump to content

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

Wait a minute, that last time I looked, getting covid gave you immunity for about 3 months. What's changed?

Media reporting with its unqualified writers such as Matt Reynolds in Wired as they love a good scare story to boost their ratings.

 

But... this seems to sum it up so far, and yes it does indicate around 3 months maybe longer.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long run, what is needed is in depth repeatable science into

lasting immunity to Cov 19 -not preprints.

The upshot of not being able to achieve lasting immunity will be to push the vulnerable onto prophylactic drugs for life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, apelike said:

Media reporting with its unqualified writers such as Matt Reynolds in Wired as they love a good scare story to boost their ratings.

 

But... this seems to sum it up so far, and yes it does indicate around 3 months maybe longer.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

It was the WHO actually. But if I had it in March am I immune or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

It was the WHO actually. But if I had it in March am I immune or not?

I would forget about being imune or not and just keep to all the guidelines in place,  keeping your self and the more vunerable safe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

In the long run, what is needed is in depth repeatable science into

lasting immunity to Cov 19 -not preprints.

The upshot of not being able to achieve lasting immunity will be to push the vulnerable onto prophylactic drugs for life.

 

The problem though is that the science is lacking simply because not enough data is available and one reason for that may actually be down to the fact that we are also trying to control and limit its spread. I said a while ago that it needs to spread quicker as just slowing it down only does what your last sentence alludes too although I'm not sure what prophylactic drugs you mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

It was the WHO actually. But if I had it in March am I immune or not?

From all that I have seen I don’t think that anyone can give you a definitive answer.

The science seems to state that if it gives you any immunity it may only be for a matter of months.

Just like the common cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RJRB said:

From all that I have seen I don’t think that anyone can give you a definitive answer.

The science seems to state that if it gives you any immunity it may only be for a matter of months.

Just like the common cold.

One of the problems with the virus is that it is novel and humans haven’t been exposed to it before. That becomes less so, as the pandemic develops. A second, or third infection is likely to be much less dangerous than a first one, if indeed, you can get it more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There may be some cases suggesting " reinfection "with Cov-19.

The upshot is that the rare cases might be examples of  the virus had not yet  left the person's  system after their first bout of Cov-19.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is rt-PCR  the right tool for the job ?

 

 

https://virologydownunder.com/yes-pcr-tests-can-detect-the-covid-virus/#comment-26164

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19/

 

If anybody has the time to read the two links-it appears that the experts can't agree.

 

Quote

 

These studies provided limited data of variable quality that PCR results per se are unlikely to predict viral culture from human samples. Insufficient attention may have been paid how PCR results relate to disease. The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this.

If this is not understood, PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.

 

Very puzzling.

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, petemcewan said:

Is rt-PCR  the right tool for the job ?

 

 

https://virologydownunder.com/yes-pcr-tests-can-detect-the-covid-virus/#comment-26164

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19/

 

If anybody has the time to read the two links-it appears that the experts can't agree.

 

Very puzzling.

As PCR detects the DNA/RNA of the virus, I would say yes, it is the right tool for the job... While the body takes time to produce antibodies, this would detect the virus a lot earlier in the infection. We use PCR in the blood transfusion service to detect HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and Hepatitis E viral DNA as well as antibody detection...

 

At the moment, there's an ongoing study to detect COVID antibodies in donors who haven't been tested as positive for the virus, to establish how many have been infected and not known it.. .As donors usually give blood several times a year, this would give an idea about the longevity of the antibody levels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CarolW.

Thank you for the reply. I understand the procedures you describe-and yes they are rountine.

You may find the Lancet link interesting.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

 

The paragraph below offers some insight./doi.

 
Quote

 Although the use of sensitive PCR methods offers value from a diagnostic viewpoint, caution is required when applying such data to assess the duration of viral shedding and infection potential because PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid.

 

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2020 at 11:53, PRESLEY said:

I would forget about being imune or not and just keep to all the guidelines in place,  keeping your self and the more vunerable safe. 

IMO Herd immunity is the way forward.

Life should carry on as normal. Let the young catch it as most will have only mild symptoms, and shield the elderly and vulnerable. I am in the elderly group so I would not be happy about this, but we cannot sacrifice the economy, the young, and our way of life because of this group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.