Corona Vaccine - Anyone getting it?

z31maniac said:

Marjorie Suddard said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Current recommendations are not to get retested within 90 days of original positive, because you will test positive regardless of symptoms. There seem to be a lot of people who are frustrated by that, because recurrence of symptoms many weeks later is not uncommon, so they are uncomfortable with the advice that after 14 days or 7 symptom-free from first bout they are not contagious, despite dealin with a second round of symptoms.

There is still a lot that's not understood about the virus, which I imagine is pretty scary for those grappling with it.

Margie

I can speak from personal experience this is not true in all cases. My girlfriend tested positive November 27th, but had started quarantining herself in one of the spare bedrooms the day before. By December 6th she was feeling better, and on December 8th she tested negative.

She was in bed, knocked out on medicine the entire time, with only small breaks to wake up and use the bathroom, hydrate, and eat. She was literally sleeping 20 hours a day.

I have had no symptoms. But got tested late last week just as precaution, and tested negative. 

That's interesting. And I should know better than to use any absolutes when it comes to Covid. I will amend that statement to "are likely to test positive" if retested within 90 days. Glad your girlfriend is feeling better.

Margie

wvumtnbkr said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

z31maniac said:

Jerry said:

gearheadmb said:

Serious question, not trying to prove a point. Can a person catch Covid19 twice? If so how can a vaccine work? If not is there a purpose for someone who has had covid to get the vaccine? 

Late to this discussion, but this caught my eye.  I caught it from my boss being an shiny happy person, so did the whole shop and his wife.  Some friends that already had it formed a Facebook chat for support and discussions, they invited me in.  One friend mentioned the first time he had it this summer it felt like the cold/flu symptoms.  Now the second time he's still dealing with after effects like getting out of bed and showering feels like he ran a marathon.

As for the topic, I won't be first in line but I'll join in fairly quick.

Has he tested positive for it twice, or is he just assuming?

This is not toward you specifically, but just in general, I see lots of people self-diagnosing themselves with all kinds of different things because they spent 90 seconds reading webMD or the Mayo Clinic site. 

 

I can't speak for that person, but there have been thousands of cases documented by the CDC of people having multiple, tested, confirmed cases of C19.

Do you have a link for that?  I can not find any hard evidence where this was proven.

 

I'm not arguing against that this hasnt happened, I just havent found any data on it and I would like to see it.

 

Thanks!

Let me look for it.  A few weeks ago, the NPR show 1A interviewed a doctor from the midwest somewhere who currently had C19 and it was his fourth time.  Obviously not just that he felt sick, but in his profession he was tested almost daily.  He was clear that he tested negative, positive, negative, positive,.... not just "I feel sick again."  He was required by law to test and document it.

NBC reported way back in the summer about how the second "wave" was showing how our own immunity doesn't last and (paraphrasing here) "thousands of of people who have already been infected are fighting the disease again."  The story continued with statistics, but the basic story was "a bunch of folks got it more than once"

The CDC's official statement is (understandably) weaksauce, but has confirmed that multiple cases have occurred in Asia.  They are basically saying "we don't now everything yet, so we're not saying final answer, but evidence points toward...."

From CDC:

Reinfection is known to occur with other human coronaviruses (HCoVs) ². A study in Kenya found that 4%–21% of people infected with endemic coronaviruses (HCoV-229E, NCoV-NL63, and HCoV-OC43) had two or more episodes of infection with the same virus species during a six-month period³. Another study of HCoVs that used an antibody increase as a proxy for reinfection found that reinfections occurred at a median of 30 months but could occur as early as 6 months following the first infection⁴. However, immunologic data on durability of immunity for SARS-CoV-2 are limited⁶. Of note, South Korea has documented RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases that became undetectable by RT-PCR, then subsequently tested positive again by RT-PCR within 35 days

Buried in this story from ABC, the CDC confirms re-infection cases in Asia and Europe 

This story documents a woman in the US who tested positive and had symptoms in March, tested negative later, then tested positive again in September with symptoms again.  This one, the CDC hasn't accepted until they do a full genetic test on the virus from both of her infections.

USA Today, CNN, MSN, Forbes, and NPR all have links to dozens of cases of reinfection.  The CDC announced in June of this year that it has received multiple cases of reinfection and is investigating.  They're aware of it, and have reported it, and released this set of guidelines to states for the reporting criteria:

From CDC via MSN:

• Adults age 18 or older,

• Laboratory-confirmed positive case with clinical recovery for about 10 days after symptoms start, or after diagnosis for those that are symptom-free,

• And any one of the following:

• Two documented negative PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests followed by a positive result;

• Recurrence of symptoms with positive PCR results;

• Positive PCR results for more than 30 days without any recurrence of symptoms.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

BTW, U70.1 (and U70.2) are emergency codes which were created specifically for COVID. They didn't exist a year ago. 

Let me dispel one more myth about this (to everyone, not just replying to SVreX), as I happen to work in the IT field that bills for this stuff. 

Yes, medicare pays an additional percentage for claims that have a covid diagnosis code. However, hospitals don't normally sit around empty, and they didn't before covid. So covid patients are replacing many other types of patients in hospitals. Most of those types of patients that are being replaced are 'elective' surgeries. 'Elective' is a bit of a funny word here, since it covers a lot of stuff that probably doesn't feel elective for the patient. Really it just means "not-emergecy". For example, if I need a hip-replacement before I can walk again, that is 'elective', but probably doesn't really feel that way to me. 

Anyway, as a general rule, the elective stuff pays way better than the emergency stuff. The small additional percentage from Medicare does not make up the difference. Not even close. So therefore, there is absolutely a large negative 'opportunity cost' of treating covid patients. Also, if I'm the guy that was supposed to have hip replacement surgery in April but still haven't been scheduled because my local hospital is full of covid patients, I'm probably pretty sad about that. 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

With all due respect, that's incorrect. At least partially. 
 

They are not lying. Doctors and medical facilities are not falsifying records. 
 

However, they ARE required to report this, and there IS a financial compensation when they deal with C19 patients.

They frequently deal with comorbidities.  And often there is no way to distinguish one potential cause from another. (Humans are funny that way). 
 

If the certificate says "COVID", there is additional financial compensation. 
 

Medical providers have entire billing departments whose ONLY job is medical coding. Their job is maximizing revenue to the facility by coding in the manner that is most advantageous to the facility. WITHOUT lying. Medical coders are not medical providers. Their job is maximizing profits and billables.

If a patient has a confirmed positive test COVID-19 test result or a presumptive positive COVID-19 test result, code U70.1 is utilized.  When this code is used, the provider is likely eligible for additional emergency compensation.  
 

This doesn't have anything to do with death certificates or lying. It has to do with medical billing and accuracy.

There is not a conspiracy, or lies being told from medical providers.  We have, however, incentivized medical coding unintentionally (it's an unintended consequence of an honest attempt to help medical providers through the crisis)

No, I didn't read it on the internet. I got it from the Director of Operations of the largest medical provider network in South GA. 
 

Here's a little more on accurate coding, if you care to know:

AAP- How to code for COVID

Thanks for the link.  My point was not that the medical facility doesn't receive federal money for a medical coding, its that the people who are spreading that doctors are lying are claiming that they lie about cause of death for financial gain.  I'm well aware of how coding works and the sources of the funds used to pay for them.  I'm just tired of hearing that people actually believe doctors or facilities are lying about C19 deaths just to line their pockets.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I've never heard anyone say doctors were lying. 
 

I've heard people say there is incentive for attributing an illness to COVID whenever possible.

Unless he's had it for 5-6 months, it's his second case.  One of those friends was interviewed on Columbus OH news a few weeks ago, she's a "long-hauler".  She started with it late March, and is STILL dealing with major problems.  breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, cough, fatigue, rashes, she has 8 or 9 specialists she's seeing.

Mid 30s healthy and active lifestyle.  She was the first person I knew in real life with it.

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

That's true now, but it wasn't true 5 months ago. Hospitals were empty. No elective work was being done at all. 
 

We built an entire emergency COVID unit for a hospital, so they could return to elective work in their primary facility. 
 

Doctors are not lying, and hospitals don't make money on COVID. But the numbers are skewed a bit. (No one knows how much)

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

There was a point when the hospitals I work with were losing $1 million per day.  Elective procedures they could not perform. It lasted 2 or 3 months.

COVID procedures did not replace that revenue. Not even close.

However, COVID revenue DID exist, and it was a lot better than $0 in revenue (which would have been the case if there were no COVID incentives, or if they had coded the cause as some other sickness).

They didn't skew the numbers for profit. They skewed them for survival. 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

There was a point when the hospitals I work with were losing $1 million per day.  Elective procedures they could not perform. It lasted 2 or 3 months.

COVID procedures did not replace that revenue. Not even close.

However, COVID revenue DID exist, and it was a lot better than $0 in revenue (which would have been the case if there were no COVID incentives, or if they had coded the cause as some other sickness).

They didn't skew the numbers for profit. They skewed them for survival. 

yeah, and 1M/day is probably from a mid-size facility. There are hundreds of healthcare systems in the US that lost/are losing at a higher rate than that. But  Medicare did not stop paying for other things. So I disagree with your bolded point to be pedantic. 

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Medicare didn't stop paying. The facility stopped scheduling.

The liability risk of bringing "well" patients who needed elective procedures into a facility that had COVID patients in it was too high. They chose to shut down voluntarily because the lawsuits would have shut them down permanently. 
 

The beds were empty. I recall several other people on this forum observing the same thing at that time in different parts of the country. 

z31maniac said:

wvumtnbkr said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

z31maniac said:

Jerry said:

gearheadmb said:

Serious question, not trying to prove a point. Can a person catch Covid19 twice? If so how can a vaccine work? If not is there a purpose for someone who has had covid to get the vaccine? 

Late to this discussion, but this caught my eye.  I caught it from my boss being an shiny happy person, so did the whole shop and his wife.  Some friends that already had it formed a Facebook chat for support and discussions, they invited me in.  One friend mentioned the first time he had it this summer it felt like the cold/flu symptoms.  Now the second time he's still dealing with after effects like getting out of bed and showering feels like he ran a marathon.

As for the topic, I won't be first in line but I'll join in fairly quick.

Has he tested positive for it twice, or is he just assuming?

This is not toward you specifically, but just in general, I see lots of people self-diagnosing themselves with all kinds of different things because they spent 90 seconds reading webMD or the Mayo Clinic site. 

 

I can't speak for that person, but there have been thousands of cases documented by the CDC of people having multiple, tested, confirmed cases of C19.

Do you have a link for that?  I can not find any hard evidence where this was proven.

 

I'm not arguing against that this hasnt happened, I just havent found any data on it and I would like to see it.

 

Thanks!

While Curtis has been pretty spot on in this thread, in this particular instance, there is no evidence that I can find to support that there have been "thousands of cases documented by the CDC of people having multiple, tested, confirmed cases of C19."

You'll notice the banner at the top of this page:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html

You are correct and thank you for calling me out.  I'll rephrase to be more accurate.  The CDC is aware of (and investigating) thousands of state-reported cases of re-infection as per the links I provided above.

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Moody's ratings do not appear to agree with you. 
 

Healthcare Finance News
 

The 2nd quarter sucked for medical. Revenues were down by 50% (which is better than the 80% that was projected). 
 

COVID relief is credited as impacting the overall positive bottom line for 2020.

Its not a question of whether there was industry wide fraud. There wasn't.  The question is whether the reporting system and the relief offered impacted the accuracy of the reporting.

Bottom line?  We will never know. 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Bottom line?  We will never know. 

If I were the mod wielding the padlock for this thread, I would erase every single reply and just leave this line as the only response 

In reply to Marjorie Suddard :

I developed symptoms on 13 November.  DW was about 48 hours after me in all symptoms.  By 20 November I was pretty much better except for some fatigue.

Because Thanksgiving we got tested on 21 November.  Both positive.  Stayed home for TG.

We got retested on 30 November, with basically no symptoms except some lingering fatigue and light sinus congestion.  DW was negative, I was positive.

I got retested again on 08 December - 3-1/2 weeks after onset of symptoms, 2 weeks after last noticeable symptoms.  Results negative.

These were all PCR tests, which are pretty accurate.

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I'm confused about what you are disagreeing with me about. 

Your article put it best: 

"Covid created 80% losses, govt assistance reduced that to 'only' a 50% loss." That, uh, well, still a pretty giant loss overall. Medicare also paid most hospital systems an advance payment of about 9 months, and most of those payments posted in the 2nd quarter. How each and every place accounted for that I don't know. 

If your point is healthcare systems increased the number of covid Dxs artificially in order to increase revenue, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. 

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

My posts started as a response to Curtis calling skewed medical reporting a myth, and saying people were accusing medical professionals of lying.
 

It's not a myth. 

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

I'm not disagreeing with you. We agree.  We agree on the mechanics, and on the medical industry's overall profits, etc.
 

Your posts appear to be right on the edge of endorsing what Curtis said.  You appear to be suggesting there is no reason or financial incentive for the reporting to be skewed.  I disagree with that.

My apologies if I misinterpreted. 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

My posts started as a response to Curtis calling skewed medical reporting a myth, and saying people were accusing medical professionals of lying.
 

It's not a myth. 

 

Got it. We're all entitled to our opinions. And at this point I see nothing that yours is somehow more valid than Curis's.

You already posted that 'we will never know', you know?

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

I didn't actually say we will never know if there was skewed reporting.  We do know that.  That's a fact.
 

I said we will never know if the accuracy of the reporting was impacted by the relief that was offered. 
 

It happened. It will always be unclear whether it effected the statistics to any degree of significance.

It wasn't my opinion. As noted earlier, it was information shared with me from the Director of Operations at a large regional medical provider.

I have no opinion on the matter, and never considered it until he shared.  
 

He did NOT tell me the quantity, significance or the impact. Only that it had happened procedurally.

We are way off topic. 

In other news, pilots are required to maintain medical certification from the FAA, but approval for use of the vaccine is required by the agency before it can be administered to flight crews. Receiving the Covid-19 vaccine before the FAA’s approval could result in the suspension of a pilot’s medical certificate. Typically it takes at least a year after FDA approval for the FAA to make a decision. They could approve it, approve it with conditions such as a temporary grounding, or disapprove it completely.

In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :

Interesting.

Apparently the FDA authorized the vaccine today, but that's different than approval.

Wonder what that means to pilots and flight crews...

"Importantly, while the vaccine reduces the risk of developing symptomatic infection, it’s not yet clear whether it also reduces transmission of the virus that causes the disease, SARS-CoV-2. It’s possible that people who are vaccinated can still contract the virus and then transmit it to others, though they themselves would not get sick."

Huh. That doesn't make me feel a lot better...

Fun and interesting discussion amongst the forum.
 

Just got notice, vaccine available for me Wednesday. It's scheduled. Looking forward to it 

wife gets her friday.