Latest Chinese export - coronavirus COVID-19

Barry · May 05, 2020, 11:52:27 AM

Covid-19 was in a pneumonia patient in Paris in December last year. The patient was swabbed then and they have now tested that swab to find it was Covid-19 positive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52526554">//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52526554

This fits with the anecdotal evidence of several people on this forum.

Javert · May 02, 2020, 12:15:59 AM

~~Quote from: "Hyperduck Quack Quack" post_id=23205 time=1588366349 user_id=103~~
It is good news but can anyone claim yet that it's impossible (rather than very unlikely) for someone to get covid-19 for a second time?

No. In fact the reverse. It's highly likely that you can become infected a second time, but we don't yet know how long after that could be.

The human body fights off the virus by generating an immune response.

By definition, if you survived the virus and got better, at that moment in time you are immune.

That immunity could last any amount of time between weeks and your entire life.

However, it's unlikely to be less than a few months otherwise we would be seeing a lot more reinfection reports from China already. We cannot say it's longer than 4 months because the virus has only existed for that long.

The other thing that have to figure out is whether people who have become immune from symptoms, could still get the virus asymptomatic for a second time and pass it to others.

Barry · May 01, 2020, 09:59:11 PM

~~Quote from: "Hyperduck Quack Quack" post_id=23205 time=1588366349 user_id=103~~
It is good news but I can anyone claim yet that it's impossible (rather than very unlikely) for someone to get covid-19 for a second time?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-scientists-conclude-people-cannot-be-infected-twice-11981721">//https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-scientists-conclude-people-cannot-be-infected-twice-11981721

Hyperduck Quack Quack · May 01, 2020, 09:52:29 PM

~~Quote from: Barry post_id=23204 time=1588363968 user_id=51~~
In the news today is that S Korea have discounted their earlier reports that 91 people had become infected for a second time. They were the result of false tests and their scientists now are sure it is not possible to be reinfected, as immunity is gained.

This is good news!

It is good news but can anyone claim yet that it's impossible (rather than very unlikely) for someone to get covid-19 for a second time?

Barry · May 01, 2020, 09:12:48 PM

In the news today is that S Korea have discounted their earlier reports that 91 people had become infected for a second time. They were the result of false tests and their scientists now are sure it is not possible to be reinfected, as immunity is gained.

This is good news!

T00ts · April 28, 2020, 11:17:24 AM

~~Quote from: papasmurf post_id=22815 time=1588068337 user_id=89~~
For the Covid-19 dead:-

~~:clp :clp :clp :clp :hattip~~

papasmurf · April 28, 2020, 11:05:37 AM

For the Covid-19 dead:-

Javert · April 28, 2020, 08:31:57 AM

~~Quote from: Scott777 post_id=22755 time=1588010292 user_id=59~~
Single digits? Such as?

Single digits typically means 9% or less.

Scott777 · April 27, 2020, 06:58:12 PM

~~Quote from: Javert post_id=22744 time=1588007466 user_id=64~~
Well yes it might, but I doubt it considering that I've heard many experts including people from PHE and CMO and other virus experts saying that they think it's in single digits overall. It might be higher in certain localised areas.

Single digits? Such as?

Javert · April 27, 2020, 06:11:06 PM

~~Quote from: Scott777 post_id=22737 time=1588004285 user_id=59~~
It's not MY confirmation bias. Anyone who claims the infections are any particular number is the one with confirmation bias. I only said it might be much larger.

Well yes it might, but I doubt it considering that I've heard many experts including people from PHE and CMO and other virus experts saying that they think it's in single digits overall. It might be higher in certain localised areas.

Scott777 · April 27, 2020, 05:18:05 PM

~~Quote from: Javert post_id=22730 time=1588001836 user_id=64~~
Ever heard of confirmation bias? There are lots of other studies showing it's in single digits.

It's not MY confirmation bias. Anyone who claims the infections are any particular number is the one with confirmation bias. I only said it might be much larger.

Javert · April 27, 2020, 04:37:16 PM

~~Quote from: Scott777 post_id=22719 time=1587994062 user_id=59~~
Some of it is right above.

Ever heard of confirmation bias? There are lots of other studies showing it's in single digits.

Scott777 · April 27, 2020, 02:27:42 PM

~~Quote from: Javert post_id=22714 time=1587992661 user_id=64~~
Where is this evidence?

Some of it is right above.

Javert · April 27, 2020, 02:04:21 PM

~~Quote from: Scott777 post_id=22645 time=1587973931 user_id=59~~
No, there is evidence that well over 50% have now had it. That would mean, even without a lockdown, the pattern would have been basically the same.

Where is this evidence?

Scott777 · April 27, 2020, 11:37:53 AM

~~Quote from: T00ts post_id=22650 time=1587975469 user_id=54~~
Do you honestly believe what you have just written? What evidence?

I can't collate all the evidence that I've seen, but I'll go through some, with the logic behind my statement. I'm not claiming a fact, just a good possibility.

1. Oxford study from weeks ago, that it is possible most people had it.

2. Studies showing the high proportion of non-symptomatic cases, being about half, plus the mild symptomatic cases, making it well over 50% who would not have seen a doctor or hospital.

3. Level of contagion.

4. People who believe they had it, going back to December, based on unusual symptoms.

5. Random testing from New York - where 20% of them tested positive for antibodies. (I'm sure we had it before they did, and so was spreading longer)

I'm sure there is lots more.