Shanked Punt said:
This is China research, so take it for what its worth, though quite a few people that recovered had a very low level of anti-bodies, and some were not detectable.
That could make a rapid, wide scale antibody test very challenging.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8203725/Antibodies-prove-difficult-detect-Chinese-coronavirus-survivors.htmlQuote:
Britain's hope of mass testing people to see who has already had COVID-19 have been dealt a major blow by research showing many have barely-detectable signs of past infection.
Antibody testing, which detects substances created and stored by the immune system when someone gets ill, reveals whether someone has been infected already.
But research from China has revealed around a third of past patients have very low levels of antibodies in their blood, which could make them hard to test for.
The study of nearly 200 patients found 30 per cent of recovered patients had surprisingly low levels of antibodies.
The disease-fighting proteins were not detected at all in 10 patients who had definitely tested positive in the past, with the researchers warning they could be at risk of catching the bug again.
It raises fears that antibody tests which tell if someone has had the infection and is likely to be immune may need to be far more sensitive than previously thought.
Anything coming out of China is self-serving and/or a lie. Why is that so hard for people to understand?Shanked Punt said:
This is China research, so take it for what its worth, though quite a few people that recovered had a very low level of anti-bodies, and some were not detectable.
That could make a rapid, wide scale antibody test very challenging.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8203725/Antibodies-prove-difficult-detect-Chinese-coronavirus-survivors.htmlQuote:
Britain's hope of mass testing people to see who has already had COVID-19 have been dealt a major blow by research showing many have barely-detectable signs of past infection.
Antibody testing, which detects substances created and stored by the immune system when someone gets ill, reveals whether someone has been infected already.
But research from China has revealed around a third of past patients have very low levels of antibodies in their blood, which could make them hard to test for.
The study of nearly 200 patients found 30 per cent of recovered patients had surprisingly low levels of antibodies.
The disease-fighting proteins were not detected at all in 10 patients who had definitely tested positive in the past, with the researchers warning they could be at risk of catching the bug again.
It raises fears that antibody tests which tell if someone has had the infection and is likely to be immune may need to be far more sensitive than previously thought.
Nuclear Scramjet said:Keegan99 said:
If the R0 is 5.7 then in the 60 days from January 15th through March 15th, with a period of 4 days, the single Wuhan traveler would produce more infections than there are people on Earth.
If the period is 6 days you still get 36 million cases in that 60 days.
At a minimum, Seattle should have seen massive numbers of fatalities. The only way they wouldn't is if the fatality rate was much much lower than estimated.
R0 is the infection rate with no measures taken at all. Clearly that isn't what happened. There is no country on Earth that let it run rampant for more than a week or two at most before major changes.
With these societal measures and government laws, they have significantly reduced the infection rate. Even then, it's very very difficult to really control in a global economy.
Shanked Punt said:
Now that the China lockdown is over, these videos are popping up again....
Nuclear Scramjet said:
Guess this explains why cities are having such a tough time shutting this thing down. Without any measures at all, the R0 is 5.7.
I am not sure the lockdowns will do all that much at this point other than just barely slow it down. Looks like we're just going to be in a holding pattern until we get a vaccine.
Bobcat06 said:
I'm not sure that we've had community spread since mid January. If we did, we would have seen mass hospitalization in early February even if the CFR is low.
There were a handful of cases in mid January but they were quickly and aggressively quarantined.
I suspect that community spread began mid February, around the time Diamond Princess passengers returned to the US, because the hospitalization really began to increase in early March.
Quote:
Averaged across all countries, we estimate initial reproduction numbers of around 3.87 [3.01-4.66], which is in line with other estimates. These estimates are informed by our choice of serial interval distribution and the initial growth rate of observed deaths. A shorter assumed serial interval results in lower starting reproduction numbers (Appendix 8.4.2, Appendix 8.4.6). The initial reproduction numbers are also uncertain due to (a) importation being the dominant source of new infections early in the epidemic, rather than local transmission (b) possible under-ascertainment in deaths particularly before testing became widespread.
R0 is number of cases it will infect throughout the course of the infection (~1 month).VaultingChemist said:
Just a simple thought on revised R0. If R0 is 5, and the time period for each new count is 6 days, then in one month, you would have 3125 cases. In 60 days, 9.7 million. If you used a flu CFR of 0.07%, then you would have 2 deaths after 30 days and 6836 deaths after 60 days.
I'm starting to read more that there are may be more than one patient zero or possibly multiple strains in the US.Keegan99 said:Bobcat06 said:
I'm not sure that we've had community spread since mid January. If we did, we would have seen mass hospitalization in early February even if the CFR is low.
There were a handful of cases in mid January but they were quickly and aggressively quarantined.
I suspect that community spread began mid February, around the time Diamond Princess passengers returned to the US, because the hospitalization really began to increase in early March.
This is provably false based on genetic testing among Seattle cases.
Community spread there commenced between January 15th and 20th, during which time the traveler from Wuhan was contagious and moving about society.
Contact tracing was attempted, but not all contacts were identified and quarantined.
Community spread in the US started no later than that time.
Quote:
New research indicates that the coronavirus began to circulate in the New York area by mid-February, weeks before the first confirmed case, and that travelers brought in the virus mainly from Europe, not Asia.
"The majority is clearly European," said Harm van Bakel, a geneticist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who co-wrote a study awaiting peer review.
A separate team at N.Y.U. Grossman School of Medicine came to strikingly similar conclusions, despite studying a different group of cases. Both teams analyzed genomes from coronaviruses taken from New Yorkers starting in mid-March.
The research revealed a previously hidden spread of the virus that might have been detected if aggressive testing programs had been put in place.
Asymptomatic cases may be as little as a few days of being infectious. We simply do not know at this time.Bobcat06 said:R0 is number of cases it will infect throughout the course of the infection (~1 month).VaultingChemist said:
Just a simple thought on revised R0. If R0 is 5, and the time period for each new count is 6 days, then in one month, you would have 3125 cases. In 60 days, 9.7 million. If you used a flu CFR of 0.07%, then you would have 2 deaths after 30 days and 6836 deaths after 60 days.
