nickie on 17/4/2020 at 19:08
@ Dema. I'm so sorry you had such a terrible time, it sounds so frightening, and I'm so glad you're feeling a bit better. I hope you can get some tests at some point. Antibodies may not give immunity but surely could say whether you've had it. I've been seeing a few things about breathing and moving and coughing being important in overcoming the virus so perhaps that walk and cough helped. And, incidentally, it's good to know fett is OK. I was wondering about him.
Take care of yourself - that's an order!
lowenz on 17/4/2020 at 19:17
Quote Posted by nickie
breathing and moving and coughing being important in overcoming the virus
To be precise to overcome the reduction of the air volume in the lungs so you can actually absorb O2 from that air (and release CO2). It's the main problem with an interstitial pneumonia, 'cause there's simply no more space for the air!
lowenz on 17/4/2020 at 19:24
Quote Posted by icemann
Forget where I read it this week. Maybe from this thread? But even people who got the virus and recovered were still vulnerable to it afterwards, as the majority of people did not have many anti-bodies to the virus in their systems afterwards.
Kind weird, as that runs counter to everything I've been hearing / reading throughout my lifetime about how things work after your body fights off a virus. Usually your body then has set defenses against that thing for x amount of time after.
Asymptomatic people (infected but with a low immune response and it's that response the main source of the big issues when it diverges and becomes too much aggressive) have LOW antibodies level.
Symptomatic (sick) people have normal level of antibodies and so they're protected for some time after the infection. Problem in this case is of course to avoid to get killed.
Renzatic on 17/4/2020 at 20:03
Quote Posted by icemann
Forget where I read it this week. Maybe from this thread? But even people who got the virus and recovered were still vulnerable to it afterwards, as the majority of people did not have many anti-bodies to the virus in their systems afterwards.
Kind weird, as that runs counter to everything I've been hearing / reading throughout my lifetime about how things work after your body fights off a virus. Usually your body then has set defenses against that thing for x amount of time after.
There are still a lot of questions about people becoming vulnerable to it again, since the reports of reinfections are pretty sporadic, and haven't been verified yet. Though the reports of previously infected people having low levels of antibodies after recovery is very true. I've read that some rare few produce NO antibodies from this. Which means that...
1. What the fuck?
2. It doesn't bode well for a potential vaccine.
lowenz on 17/4/2020 at 20:44
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I've read that some rare few produce NO antibodies from this. Which means that...
1. What the fuck?
Simply put in those cases you got a cold-like disease, but more aggressive 'cause the affinity of the SARS2 is not limited to the nasal mucosa. A very persistent cold.
But those cases are NOT the dangerous ones (if the virus is far from the brain / heart / kidney). The real danger is when the immune system goes mad and you got the infamous cytokine storm passing through you like a.....storm.
jkcerda on 17/4/2020 at 20:54
Quote Posted by icemann
Forget where I read it this week. Maybe from this thread? But even people who got the virus and recovered were still vulnerable to it afterwards, as the majority of people did not have many anti-bodies to the virus in their systems afterwards.
Kind weird, as that runs counter to everything I've been hearing / reading throughout my lifetime about how things work after your body fights off a virus. Usually your body then has set defenses against that thing for x amount of time after.
you can catch the flu every single damn year and virus tends to mutate so I got a feeling this coming flu season is going to be nastier than the current pandemic.
Renzatic on 17/4/2020 at 21:05
If you want to see something truly strange...
(
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1) COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
In digest:
Quote:
These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.
Coronavirus could be more virulent than even Measles, but only escalates in a relatively small percentage of those infected. Weird stuff.
Renzatic on 17/4/2020 at 21:24
Quote Posted by jkcerda
you can catch the flu every single damn year and virus tends to mutate so I got a feeling this coming flu season is going to be nastier than the current pandemic.
Every rare once in awhile, the flu produces a particularly mean strain that tears through the population, but there's no reason yet to assume this coming season will be worse than your average outbreak.
heywood on 17/4/2020 at 22:32
Quote Posted by Renzatic
There are still a lot of questions about people becoming vulnerable to it again, since the reports of reinfections are pretty sporadic, and haven't been verified yet. Though the reports of previously infected people having low levels of antibodies after recovery is very true. I've read that some rare few produce NO antibodies from this. Which means that...
1. What the fuck?
2. It doesn't bode well for a potential vaccine.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
If you want to see something truly strange...
(
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1) COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
In digest:
Coronavirus could be more virulent than even Measles, but only escalates in a relatively small percentage of those infected. Weird stuff.
Antibody tests are not that accurate, so take it with a big grain of salt.
If someone tests positive for the presence of the virus but later tests negative for antibodies, it could be because the first result was a false positive, or the second result was a false negative.
Regarding the Stanford study in Santa Clara County, they used an antibody test made by Premier Biotech. It's not FDA approved. I'm finding it hard to find any definitive information from the manufacturer about this specific test's accuracy, but most information I've seen says current antibody tests are 90-95% accurate. Stanford is now developing their own test that they hope will be 95-99% accurate.
The abstract of the paper says "The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%)"
The 1.5% positive rate they measured in the population sample could be all false positives. How can you measure a virus penetration rate of 1-2% with a test that's only 95% accurate? Of particular concern here is the test specificity, which they estimated based on just a few hundred samples.
Check out this video:
(
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/15/operation_gridlock_protest_against_michigans_stay_home_order_blocks_traffic_in_lansing.html)
People are nuts.
