Been looking at all the numbers and the recoveries are really low .. Is that truly accurate and the virus is sticking with people for so long (leaving them as Active) or are we just not closing out cases as "Recovered" because we cant verify recovery? Seems the recovered number is almost useless at this point. Really hoping we get an antibody test soon as this seems like a big key

Just takes that long to recover. Look at recovered numbers in China, Italy, and Washington.

AggieJosh2002 said:

---

Been looking at all the numbers and the recoveries are really low .. Is that truly accurate and the virus is sticking with people for so long (leaving them as Active) or are we just not closing out cases as "Recovered" because we cant verify recovery? Seems the recovered number is almost useless at this point. Really hoping we get an antibody test soon as this seems like a big key

---

Corona viruses in general take a long time to be cleared from the body (4 weeks?) The monkey test on this one is consistent with nearly 4 weeks to clear the virus. Would be about 3 weeks after symptoms.

We don't really have that many people who have had it for that long. Some 90yo lady from the old folks home in Washington was released from the hospital as virus free recently.

Thank you. I must have missed it.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

AggieJosh2002 said:

---

Been looking at all the numbers and the recoveries are really low .. Is that truly accurate and the virus is sticking with people for so long (leaving them as Active) or are we just not closing out cases as "Recovered" because we cant verify recovery? Seems the recovered number is almost useless at this point. Really hoping we get an antibody test soon as this seems like a big key

---

Corona viruses in general take a long time to be cleared from the body (4 weeks?) The monkey test on this one is consistent with nearly 4 weeks to clear the virus. Would be about 3 weeks after symptoms.

We don't really have that many people who have had it for that long. Some 90yo lady from the old folks home in Washington was released from the hospital as virus free recently.

---

So the timeline is
1) Exposed (but don't get it) 14days?
2) Exposed (but come down with it:
1) 3-14 days to come down with it
2) 7-14 days to get over it (negative test)
3) 3 weeks (21 days) to clear
4) Total = 24 - 35 days (3-5 weeks)

BiochemAg97 said:

---

AggieJosh2002 said:

---

Been looking at all the numbers and the recoveries are really low .. Is that truly accurate and the virus is sticking with people for so long (leaving them as Active) or are we just not closing out cases as "Recovered" because we cant verify recovery? Seems the recovered number is almost useless at this point. Really hoping we get an antibody test soon as this seems like a big key

---

Corona viruses in general take a long time to be cleared from the body (4 weeks?) The monkey test on this one is consistent with nearly 4 weeks to clear the virus. Would be about 3 weeks after symptoms.

We don't really have that many people who have had it for that long. Some 90yo lady from the old folks home in Washington was released from the hospital as virus free recently.

---

Wow .. gotcha ... so once confirmed positives hit the 4 week mark are they automatically marked as recovered if they dont seek any additional medical help or do they actually need to be tested again to be marked as recovered ... I assume we are not testing folks for recovery

interesting reading, posted for comment...

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israeli-expert-trump-is-right-about-covid-19-who-is-wrong-1.8691031

Article is walled, care to summarize?

California Ag 90 said:

---

Kick-R said:

---

Article is walled, care to summarize?

---

weird - i don't subscribe and i went straight in.

---

Me too. Kick-R have you frequented their site a few times before? If yes, try going incognito mode. I have to do that now to read Houston Chronicle articles.

California Ag 90 said:

---

interesting reading, posted for comment...

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israeli-expert-trump-is-right-about-covid-19-who-is-wrong-1.8691031

---

Im immediately skeptical but willing to listen

Quote:

---

Dr. Yamin is an engineer, not a physician

---

Doc, if you haven't seen it already take a look at the thread by NawlinsAg titled, "Clinical Pearls Covid 19 for ER practitioners."

Strange, just tried again and it let me in with no issue.

I had trouble getting in on my phone. I forgot I was using VPN. Once I turned that off it let me in without any trouble.

The website might have been getting too many requests from your IP address if you are using a shared one.

Reveille said:

---

Aggie09Derek said:

---

Anyway to filter by verified docs?

---

Look for the red crosses that should make it a little faster. They are slowly getting them all marked.

---

Yeah for sure. Thank you so much for everything.

Would just be nice to filter only by that and go from 34 pages to like 5 pages to read

Reveille said:

---

reload85 said:

---

The article below is an statistical look at the positive folks on the cruise ship. It is a neat data set because I think everyone was tested .
The most interesting tidbit here is the level of asymptotic cases were higher in the middle older age groups. Preexisting immunity to other Coronaviruses or waining immunomonitor production (cytokines)? Thoughts?
Take care!
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v2.full.pdf

---

Thank you for sharing and it is very interesting article for sure. The scary thing of this article is they actually found more asymptomatic patients than patients with the disease. So as we have always expected the numbers are so much higher than we see because we are only testing the ones who are very ill.

---

Ok guess I'm confused - I would assume that's a "good news" story?

We're possibly building herd immunity at a faster rate, right?

Thanks again Doc - you're redazz!

Thanks Doc!

I noticed that you recommend to stop Vitamin D if you get sick. What happens if you take Vitamin D while sick?

Reveille said:

---

RCR06 said:

---

I read somewhere to be considered recovered you had to test negative twice(could be mistaken) after previously testing positive. We don't have enough tests now to test if people have it or not so I imagine they aren't testing afterward at this point.

---

The problem is the test has a low sensitivity of around 70%. So even when it is negative there is a 30% you still have the disease.

---

Is the test sensitivity the main problem with not showing people recovered or is it in addition to not having enough tests?

RCR06 said:

---

Reveille said:

---

RCR06 said:

---

I read somewhere to be considered recovered you had to test negative twice(could be mistaken) after previously testing positive. We don't have enough tests now to test if people have it or not so I imagine they aren't testing afterward at this point.

---

The problem is the test has a low sensitivity of around 70%. So even when it is negative there is a 30% you still have the disease.

---

Is the test sensitivity the main problem with not showing people recovered or is it in addition to not having enough tests?

---

I think the test prioritization may be significant here, plus a time issue. Recovered should be a virus free state, not just out of critical care. So the question becomes do you use a test to determine if someone has it, or use the test to determine if someone is recovered. Plus, all the people sent home to self isolate won't necessarily come back to be retested.

Alternatively you could assume that if you are alive after 4 or 5 weeks, you have recovered, But that backs us out to infections that stated in Feb. given the lack of testing back then, there aren't a whole lot of positive cases to be recovered from that time frame.,

Reveille said:

---

RCR06 said:

---

I read somewhere to be considered recovered you had to test negative twice(could be mistaken) after previously testing positive. We don't have enough tests now to test if people have it or not so I imagine they aren't testing afterward at this point.

---

The problem is the test has a low sensitivity of around 70%. So even when it is negative there is a 30% you still have the disease.

---

There was a case in San Antonio from those quarantined (don't know if cruise ship or repatriated from China). She tested negative twice (24 hrs apart as per release criteria), was released from quarantine and then tested positive and went back into quarantine. This would have been the CDC test.

I'm curious about the 70% sensitivity number given so many tests are out there now. I recall some concern that the test used in China wasn't very good, and there were issues with the CDC test. I saw a claim that part of the delay on approving the non-CDC tests was trying to get a higher sensitivity, so I am wondering if the current tests from ThermoFisher and Roche and the private labs are better and people are using the old 70% number based on the CDC test. I haven't been able to find any sensitivity data for any of the more recent tests. But then again, they are EUA and not "approved" so not sure we have the data to get an accurate sensitivity.

The positive test was taken before leaving quarantine. The person was released after 2 negatives and had a pending test out. After spending hours at the mall and staying at a local hotel, that 3rd test came back positive. Then they had to go get them and put back into quarantine.

Thanks Doc

Asking the docs, friend of a friend in Dallas, already went to urgent care and sent home, tested positive, mid 30's and no other health conditions:

"She's on day 12 at home still. She says it's rough."

"Yeah she's got brown stuff coming up and it takes 10 minutes to recover her breath after walking to the kitchen."

Should she be in hospital?