Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[delphonso]

I was mocked on here for worrying about this back in late February and lo and behold I found myself living on the periphery of the worst affected area of the worst affected state in the worst affected county of the COVID crisis 

So ‘worry more about the flu’ wasn’t exactly that long ago

The quarantine days are blending together but honestly not much time has passed since the vast majority of people went into lockdown

Yeah, you really did call it. A bit hysteric, I still believe, but you were far more accurate than I was. Sorry for downplaying you so many times in the past, Tamer.

My homestate of Wisconsin plans to stay closed about 3 weeks longer than the states surrounding it. Of course, my facebook is full of people shouting that this is a violation of rights. I guess people want to die. *shrug*

[Starver]

My homestate of Wisconsin plans to stay closed about 3 weeks longer than the states surrounding it. Of course, my facebook is full of people shouting that this is a violation of rights. I guess people want to die. *shrug*

When the obedient Wisconsonians finally emerge, and discover their ability to expand over the (even more) desolate wastes of Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa and Michigan (henceforth known as West Wisconsin, South Wisconsin, Southwest Wisconsin and Other Wet Wisconsin), I'm sure they'll have other thoughts on their mind.

[Reelya]

They had another of those stupid headlines today. The clickbait link was "Man catches COVID-19 three times"

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/man-suffers-repeated-covid19-infection-baffling-doctors/news-story/e48b092859c9bc34ee81268b543b5a2b

After a long-winded intro depicting the nightmare scenario of re-infection, no immunity they finally give us the details:

The man (who was also suffering from heart problems) tested positive only to be retested after a few days’ recuperation. His result was negative.

The man returned home only to be retested a little over a week a later. This time, the result was positive. Seven days later, he tested negative again. Then, four days after that, he tested positive again.

So ...

day  1: tested positive
day  ~4: tested negative
day ~12: tested positive
day ~19: tested negative
day ~23: tested positive

So, it was literally only 3 weeks. By the article's logic, he was "re-infected" with Covid-19 three times in three weeks. Another bullshit story. The tests were just faulty. Also, how were the different tests carried out? For all I know the negative tests could be the nasal swabs and the two final positive tests could both be fecal swabs. The news articles have conflated those before.

[feelotraveller]

If you had clicked the link supplied by that article you would have found that it was more rigourous than you would have us believe:

A 68-year-old man was admitted due to fever, muscle pain, and fatigue. He was initially diagnosed with COVID-19 according to two consecutive positive results for SARS-CoV-2 RNA plus clinical symptoms and chest CT findings, and was discharged from hospital when meeting the discharge criteria, including two consecutive negative results. He was tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA twice during the quarantine and was hospitalized again. He was asymptomatic then, but IgG and IgM were both positive. He was discharged in the context of four consecutive negative test results for SARS-CoV-2 RNA after antiviral treatment. However, he was tested positive once again on the 3rd and 4th day after the second discharge, although still asymptomatic. IgG and IgM were still positive. After antiviral treatment, the results of SARS-CoV-2 RNA were negative in three consecutive retests, and he was finally discharged and quarantined for further surveillance.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-23197/v1

While I certainly don't condone the clickbait link, and don't pretend to know what is going on it does seem that there is legitmate concern here.  It also seems clear that the 'experts' quoted later in the news.com.au article you linked didn't bother to actually read the source paper either. 

[ChairmanPoo]

But that's basically what Reelya said. His IgM was still positive, so he never seroconverted in the first place. He tested negative foe pcr for four days, then was positive again. It's the same as the other cases: not a reinfection, but prolonged viral DNA shedding.
The authors say it themselves in the discussion  and for what I've seen this is the most common interpretation of these cases.

Given the possibility of recurrently positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA, especially in immunocompromised patients, and the uncertainty of infectivity of recurrently positive patients, the discharged patients should continue to be quarantined for at least 14 days and monitored for SARS-CoV-2 RNA repeatedly, and be wary of becoming a virus carrier and thereby spreading the virus to others.

So the issue is recurrent positivity, more than recurrent infection.

They also talk a lot about the patient being immunocompromised, and this affecting prolonged viral positivity.... while that IS something you do see with immunocompromised patients and other viruses (eg the flu), I'm not really sure why they say the guy is immunocompromised as they dont mention any of the usual suspects in his clinical background. I assume they might mean the lymphocyte counts they did during admission? But it's kind of common to see drops during infections, especially severe ones, and was widely reported as a common finding in covid19🤔.  I'm pretty sure some of the early score tables for ER used it as a potential sign.


Anyway:

These other guys posted a report on pcr positivity a while ago
https://t.co/DA7nyEkSA9?amp=1
It fluctuates up and down. Close to the threshold it creates problems... its an open question whether these guys are infectious too but I dont think anyone wants to risk it.

[feelotraveller]

But that's basically what Reelya said. His IgM was still positive, so he never seroconverted in the first place. He tested negative foe pcr for four days, then was positive again. It's the same as the other cases: not a reinfection, but prolonged viral DNA shedding.
The authors say it themselves in the discussion  and for what I've seen this is the most common interpretation of these cases.

Given the possibility of recurrently positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA, especially in immunocompromised patients, and the uncertainty of infectivity of recurrently positive patients, the discharged patients should continue to be quarantined for at least 14 days and monitored for SARS-CoV-2 RNA repeatedly, and be wary of becoming a virus carrier and thereby spreading the virus to others.

So the issue is recurrent positivity, more than recurrent infection.

They also talk a lot about the patient being immunocompromised, and this affecting prolonged viral positivity.... while that IS something you do see with immunocompromised patients and other viruses (eg the flu), I'm not really sure why they say the guy is immunocompromised as they dont mention any of the usual suspects in his clinical background. I assume they might mean the lymphocyte counts they did during admission? But it's kind of common to see drops during infections, especially severe ones, and was widely reported as a common finding in covid19🤔.  I'm pretty sure some of the early score tables for ER used it as a potential sign.


Anyway:

These other guys posted a report on pcr positivity a while ago
https://t.co/DA7nyEkSA9?amp=1
It fluctuates up and down. Close to the threshold it creates problems... its an open question whether these guys are infectious too but I dont think anyone wants to risk it.

Yes, I broadly agree with you.  (Not sure what Reelya meant with 'The tests were just faulty' nor why the multiple consecutive tests were not mentioned.)  Certainly we all agree that the Murdoch gutter press article is a piece of carp.

It is worth noting that while recurrent positivity is postulated as the most likely scenario the authors of that paper also state:

"The recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity may be related to the biological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, underlying diseases, clinical status, immune function, and sampling, processing and detecting of samples. In addition, re-infection or false negativity sometimes for nasopharyngeal test cannot be ruled out."

[NJW2000]

Apparently someone called the police on our family, for commuting to a city and back. UK.

We... haven't been doing that. We are living in a village none of us were born in right now though, so there's some resentment about that. Interesting development.

[ChairmanPoo]

Apparently someone called the police on our family, for commuting to a city and back. UK.

We... haven't been doing that. We are living in a village none of us were born in right now though, so there's some resentment about that. Interesting development.

People are assholes worldwide.

Did you hear about the healthcare workers who were getting notes underneath their doors asking them to leave?

[scriver]

I mean. If they think your city flighters, that makes sense. I'd be an asshole to that kind of assholes too. They deserve it.

But if you're just staying where you actually live. Then they're supreme assholes.

[NJW2000]

We're half and half, really. My parents have never shared a property, so we have two homes, one in the country. We were staying in the country one well before lockdown, and decided against going back to the city out of self-interest.

If its an honest mistake, that's one thing. Otherwise that sort of aggression should be worked out via extreme social snubs, insulting notes and egged houses, not wasting police time.

[Reelya]

Yes, I broadly agree with you.  (Not sure what Reelya meant with 'The tests were just faulty' nor why the multiple consecutive tests were not mentioned.)  Certainly we all agree that the Murdoch gutter press article is a piece of carp.

What I mean is that the tests are inherently faulty, if they don't accurately measure the thing they're intended to measure.

You can have a test that "works" but if it gives inconsistent readings then it doesn't pass muster as being a test of thing you're really saying it's for. Whether there were consecutive tests or not isn't really relevant. If that doesn't give them the information they're after, then they're taking the wrong measurements by definition.

EDIT: As for the fact that he showed negative for multiple tests before showing positive for a couple, then negative for a couple of tests. I'd call this sample / selection bias. They've tested millions of people, this guy could have this pattern of test results purely by chance. If there's some % chance of a false negative, then surely if you test a large enough number of people some amount will have multiple false negatives in a row, and some smaller number of people will have this happen more than once. It's like shuffling a deck of cards then drawing all four aces off the top, and telling people about that, but excluding mention the 3.5 million other shuffles and draws you had to go through before getting that one result.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yes, I broadly agree with you.  (Not sure what Reelya meant with 'The tests were just faulty' nor why the multiple consecutive tests were not mentioned.)  Certainly we all agree that the Murdoch gutter press article is a piece of carp.

What I mean is that the tests are inherently faulty, if they don't accurately measure the thing they're intended to measure.

You can have a test that "works" but if it gives inconsistent readings then it doesn't pass muster as being a test of thing you're really saying it's for. Whether there were consecutive tests or not isn't really relevant. If that doesn't give them the information they're after, then they're taking the wrong measurements by definition.

That's kind of a very wrong reading. All tests have detection thresholds and accuracy parameters. You have to be aware of the limitations of the test and act accordingly. You wont find 100% reliable information anywhere, much less in medicine

[Reelya]

Yes, I broadly agree with you.  (Not sure what Reelya meant with 'The tests were just faulty' nor why the multiple consecutive tests were not mentioned.)  Certainly we all agree that the Murdoch gutter press article is a piece of carp.

What I mean is that the tests are inherently faulty, if they don't accurately measure the thing they're intended to measure.

You can have a test that "works" but if it gives inconsistent readings then it doesn't pass muster as being a test of thing you're really saying it's for. Whether there were consecutive tests or not isn't really relevant. If that doesn't give them the information they're after, then they're taking the wrong measurements by definition.

That's kind of a very wrong reading. All tests have detection thresholds and accuracy parameters. You have to be aware of the limitations of the test and act accordingly. You wont find 100% reliable information anywhere, much less in medicine

Yeah you're probably right. I added in a bit in an edit that's probably more on the money. If you sample enough people and there's some error rate, virtually every pattern of results would have to appear at least once. Which really shows the fallacy of basing an entire theory off one result out of millions of samples.

[Starver]

We... haven't been doing that. We are living in a village none of us were born in right now though, so there's some resentment about that. Interesting development.

If your family hasn't been living within the same four stone walls (and probably under exactly the same thatching of the roof) for 300 years, how dare you say you're local to the area!

[Reelya]

I bet they even have the temerity to go to the local shop, when it's clearly a local shop for local people.