Incident rate (e.g. cases per 100 residents, not total cases)
Incident rate (e.g. cases per 100 residents, not total cases)
13 sailors that has tested positive on the Roosevelt have tested positive a second time. This is following 14 days of actual isolation quarantine and two negative tests in a row 24-48 hours apart.
In reply to Javelin (Forum Supporter) :
There's a reasonable chance that something weird is going on there that's impacting the results rather than actual reinfection.
False positives, false negatives, or a test that's sensitive enough that it detects the presence of the virus even after the virus has been rendered inert. At least that's what the South Koreans have seen
I read an article about that and they wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/uss-theodore-roosevelt-sailors-positive-coronavirus-second-time:
The accuracy of testing itself has also been called into question. Sailors were tested for the virus using nasal swabs. In some cases, an infection can be at such a low level that it is not detected by the test, which could mean no relapses occurred, and those cleared for the virus really had levels too low for detection.
What's really interesting is that it doesn't seem to be a very widespread problem - it seems like there's a handful that test positive twice here and there. Given that there have been so many cases worldwide, it's got to be some kind of glitch in testing, some second variant that doesn't create the same antibodies, or something about the individuals and their immune systems.
In reply to STM317 :
The military's theory is that the sailors did not have enough viral load in the first infection to build up antibodies for immunity and truly did get reinfected.
The scary part is if you can get Covid 2 times and that there is not immunity,
and that both times you get all the bad symptoms ,
There is so much to learn and of course we want all the answers YESTERDAY ,
Stay safe .
Just to note again that there was a study that DID show continuing presence of the antibody. It is just one study and they don't know duration yet.
The observations of second infections from what I have seen where found to be un-reliable (or otherwise explained)
Nothing for sure at this point, but it's looking good so far. Hopefully the navy thing is the result of other issues as noted.
In reply to aircooled :
The entire ship has been tested multiple times with the highest accuracy test available. Over 800 sailors tested positive in the first wave, so a 15/8xx reinfection rate is fairly low. Given the Navy's pedantic pentient for procedure, I would throw testing or results errors out of the window.
Most viruses have a minimum viral load required to build immunity. This is not abnormal.
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to aircooled :
The entire ship has been tested multiple times with the highest accuracy test available. Over 800 sailors tested positive in the first wave, so a 15/8xx reinfection rate is fairly low. Given the Navy's pedantic pentient for procedure, I would throw testing or results errors out of the window.
Most viruses have a minimum viral load required to build immunity. This is not abnormal.
PCR testing is only 67% accurate on its best day. I don’t think you can ever throw errors out the window.
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to STM317 :
The military's theory is that the sailors did not have enough viral load in the first infection to build up antibodies for immunity and truly did get reinfected.
I haven't seen anything like that from the military. You have a link?
Even if it's true that there wasn't enough viral load with the first infection, and reinfection has occurred, is that a huge deal? It probably means that the initial infection had minimal if any negative impact on these people, and it's likely to lessen the severity of symptoms on any recurring infection.
This seems like good news:
Moderna C19 Vaccine progressing through early trials
Also good because that means I should stay busy for awhile since I'm working on a project to start making this once it's ready. That said, I've also been doing this long enough to know that everything could come crashing to a halt without notice. And it will also take more time than most people probably realize, even with the urgency being placed on these.
Also testing a vaccine in Canada too, I believe.
I think I read that the fastest a vaccine has ever come to market is 4 years
Just as a thought exercise.... what do we do if in 12-18 months they still say the vaccine is 12-18 months away? I know a couple people who are absolutely resolute in their decision that they aren't going back to work and they aren't going anywhere in public "until there's a vaccine". While I certainly hope and pray that they're going to be able to complete development of that or at least come up with a good anti-viral treatment, what's the back-up plan? Some of us can continue to work remotely more-or-less indefinitely, but do we keep doing school-from-home? What about the various job functions that have to be done in person? What about the people that used to work in the jobs that don't exist until we're able to open things back up all the way? At some point do we just collectively decide that it's like the '68 Hong Kong Flu Pandemic and go have Woodstock-like socializing anyway? Is there some sort of inevitability to all this? I know that the whole lockdown thing is basically a theory that is based on a 14 year old's science fair project, but how does it account for a virus that doesn't go away and doesn't have a cure? Not that we're there yet, but we should be thinking about that possible eventuality just in case we find ourselves there.
In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
I would say the "until there's a vaccine" people are being unrealistic. The point of the isolation and "flattening the curve" was not to stop the virus - that is not really possible - but to slow it down until the health care infrastructure could get prepared. This seems to have gone better in some places than others. But to completely pause the economy for months on end or even years is not a sustainable course of action. Nor is the current media infatuation of reporting on cases and death numbers as if they could be lower if (pick political party of choice) had only done some decision differently.
Comparing to previous pandemics is difficult. The world is not the same as it was in 1918 or 1968. Global supply changes are considerably more intertwined. International travel is (was...) much more prevalent. Global communication is massively better. All of this combines to affect how quickly something like this can spread, but also how quickly information can get out to slow it down.
wae (Forum Supporter) said:Just as a thought exercise.... what do we do if in 12-18 months they still say the vaccine is 12-18 months away? I know a couple people who are absolutely resolute in their decision that they aren't going back to work and they aren't going anywhere in public "until there's a vaccine". While I certainly hope and pray that they're going to be able to complete development of that or at least come up with a good anti-viral treatment, what's the back-up plan? Some of us can continue to work remotely more-or-less indefinitely, but do we keep doing school-from-home? What about the various job functions that have to be done in person? What about the people that used to work in the jobs that don't exist until we're able to open things back up all the way? At some point do we just collectively decide that it's like the '68 Hong Kong Flu Pandemic and go have Woodstock-like socializing anyway? Is there some sort of inevitability to all this? I know that the whole lockdown thing is basically a theory that is based on a 14 year old's science fair project, but how does it account for a virus that doesn't go away and doesn't have a cure? Not that we're there yet, but we should be thinking about that possible eventuality just in case we find ourselves there.
I think we're already starting to see it. Mandatory mask-wearing, lots of hand sanitizer, clear barriers at checkout stations, no large groups, etc. Schools can do staggered schedules so that all the kids are not in the hallways at the same time, and they are in "cohorts" so that they are only exposed to the same people every day. Entertainment venues selling every other seat so that there's distance between people. Restaurants doing something similar with tables.
But also, I think those "I'm not going out unless there's a vaccine" people are in the minority. A couple of months ago, I was heavily freaked out about this whole thing (go back and look at my posts!). Now, I'm still cautious, but I'm also ready to go out and "take more chances". You can only keep people cooped up for so long, especially with nicer weather hitting. I ran to Costco yesterday, and based on the traffic here in town, you'd never know anything was wrong.
In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
I think you know where I stand. I refuse to live in fear. I refuse to put my life on hold for decades waitign for something that may never happen. This whole issue has become more political than scientific at this point and everyone has their jump to conclusion mats out and playing along from home.
Current mortality rate is what, less than 1% still? The curve has been flattened. Even with the increased testing the numbers aren't continuing to jump up. Hospitals are prepared. What are we waiting on? We as a nation and a people cannot continue to be locked down. Suicides, domestic violence etc are all rising. unemployment is astronomical. Come on, lets be realistic. IT's time to open the damn doors and move on with our lives. If it makes you feel better to pound your chest and scream that we made it better go for it.
bobzilla said:In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
Current mortality rate is what, less than 1% still?
How are you getting that?
Of the 438,033 closed cases, 91,077 have died. Thats a 21% mortality rate.
I went to the local supermarket last night and by that gauge, things are starting to look better. Shelves are starting to get full again (as long as you don't need brand name TP). They are still controlling checkout use and keeping the "in" and "out" vestibules separate, but they have stopped the one-way aisles.
wae (Forum Supporter) said:Just as a thought exercise.... what do we do if in 12-18 months they still say the vaccine is 12-18 months away?
This is why I think there should also be a big push (maybe there is, I don't know) to figure out how to easily identify the estimated 80% of the population who are essentially unaffected by it and those who are are immune because of exposure. That way you can have a "safe" population that can continue on doing almost anything.
Considering only something like 60% of people in the US work at all anyway, it might not be that big a reduction (some could likely still work remotely anyway).
In reply to ProDarwin :
Update your numbers.
1.52M confirmed cases. 90K deaths.
As a portion of the population, it's pretty low. 300M people, 90K deaths.
ProDarwin said:bobzilla said:In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
Current mortality rate is what, less than 1% still?
How are you getting that?
Of the 438,033 closed cases, 91,077 have died. Thats a 21% mortality rate.
There is NO way the mortality rate is anywhere near 21%. The denominator you are using is certainly WAY off.
We have a good idea of how many have died from it (could be off either way for various reasons), but do not have a good idea of who have contracted it. As mentioned previously something like 80% of the people who get it are effectively asymptomatic. I think the best guess at this point is somewhere around .5% (still at least 5 times more than the seasonal flu)
In reply to ProDarwin :
Er, I think that's bad math.
I don't disagree that you have a point that some of the currently "confirmed cases" don't have a disposition yet, so some of them may die, but are they really tracking the "recovered" cases as closely? Or is that just the number of people that were hospitalized and released while still breathing? Everything that I have read (CDC, WHO, etc) says that they're calling the mortality rate at 6% on the high end and anticipating that as we better understand it that the number will drop significantly. The problem, as always, is in the data: we don't have enough to know who is infected, and my guess is that if someone is tested, found positive, but doesn't need to go to the hospital and recovers, they're not getting counted in the "cured" column. But that's just an assumption on my part.
To be sure, I'm not dismissing the mortality rate or saying that it is unimportant or whatever. But I am not seeing anybody else talk in terms of double-digit mortality rates.
EDIT: But regardless of that -- hell, even if it is 21% -- what do we do if there's no cure for this?
ProDarwin said:bobzilla said:In reply to wae (Forum Supporter) :
Current mortality rate is what, less than 1% still?
How are you getting that?
Of the 438,033 closed cases, 91,077 have died. Thats a 21% mortality rate.
I am seeing 1.52m cases and 89,932 deaths... Which would be 5.9%.
But that was the randomized testing by the University of Indiana that was post a couple pages back that found it to be .5%. Also it is pretty clear that the lack of tests means that only the most affect are getting them so that jacks up the mortality rate too.
Confirmed cases is what the local news leads with and it's a useless stat.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
I think the numbers PD is referencing show "Closed cases" where people have either died, or are considered officially "recovered". It's probably pretty similar to looking at the numbers for "hospitalizations", where the potential outcome is either 1) recovery or 2) death. I'm not sure it's useful info really since so many people that have tested positive but shown minor or no symptoms aren't considered part of the "recovered" group. And there's no effort at all in that calculation to figure out how many have had it but not been tested.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
