There are mounting anecdotal cases but nothing done to test yet in this area, so the answer is 'inconclusive'.

I think S.Korea has lead research in this area...

South Korea’s New Coronavirus Twist: Recovered Patients Test Positive Again


Doctors believe that the disease may have gone dormant and then come back, posing more challenges for testing

SEOUL—More than 160 South Koreans have tested positive a second time for the coronavirus, a development that suggests the disease may have a longer shelf life than expected.

Many had volunteered for re-examination after exhibiting symptoms such as coughing. Others submitted to extra testing on little more than a hunch despite not showing symptoms. So far, these patients—all of whom needed to twice test negative before leaving medical supervision—haven’t spread the virus to others, local health officials say.

...

-------------------------------

Can You Catch Covid-19 Twice?

...Then why are some people testing positive again?
Roughly 450 South Koreans tested positive for the virus again after meeting the criteria for recovery and being discharged from isolation. The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention re-tested more than half of those people and found no evidence of the live virus circulating.

Peer-reviewed research studies have shown that viral fragments can circulate even after an individual is symptom-free. That doesn’t mean that people are still sick or infectious....

Re: Max Cut, toddlers gonna toddler, agree that it's best ignored.
I'm not seeing this. The bit you refer to seems to simply be an arbitrary update to guidance - if you're had corona in the last 3 months you don't need to worry about quarantining after exposure to an infected person. It's not a statement that immunity only lasts three months. The CDC are simply setting a lower safe bound on probable immunity in their guidance, not an upper one.

I am well aware how different turnaround times can be depending on a variety of factors, but I've seen only a handful of people say they were quoted such a long time. Sorry you were one of them.

I have to say $140 is straight stratospheric pricing for an antigen test. Which one was it, do you know? BD, Abbott? BD tests are costing providers $30-40 per test right now, less if you're buying a crap-ton.

Something else everyone should be aware of (this may have already been discussed here): several states, with more to come, are NOT INCLUDING rapid positives in the PCR-based Covid case counts (the state/country counts we're all familiar with). States are going to pivot away from reporting these big daily numbers and say these tests are for screening, not diagnosis.

Here's Maryland's health commissioner saying all this plainly https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/ne...ta/3373740001/

As long as they're followed up with a confirmatory reliable diagnostic test (they seem to be), it seems reasonable to exclude tests with large false positive rates, especially if overall test positivity rates are low.

Good thread on reinfection

https://twitter.com/adamhamdy/status...35753169756163

Bottom line we just don't know yet re: C19.

That's the problem, this will not always be the case. Insurance companies are already refusing to pay for a rapid + PCR test. Perhaps it's growing pains and will get sorted out but I would expect positivity/overall case counts to be much less reliable as states transition to rapid tests.

My understanding is that the antigen tests have more false negatives, but false positives are very rare. So there's no reason not to count the positives.

Reading posts from the beginning of this thread is hilarious. The complete inability to understand how exponential growth works was very annoying early on. As an American that was trying to explain this to people early on..... lol. Don't respond to this post, I just remember dealing with these type of people personally and it was very frustrating.

Dude there's still tens of millions in the US alone that have evolved zero on the severity/personal responsibility of this.

I used to have a cleaning service come to my house every 2 weeks until March. I just (tried to) start back up with them last week, after having multiple conversations with the owner in the days leading up about the employees wearing masks while here (I said not masking is fine when we were not home but on this particular occasion we needed to be). So the crew arrives and comes in, sans masks, and then both tell me they won't put one on b/c they can't work in them. So I said ok, then you're not cleaning the house, and made them leave, and they were pretty *****ty about it. I called the owner and he said they had told him it would be fine to mask up, so I wonder how often that happens, they show up and do this and people are too courteous to say no.

Something positive. Now if only it can get scaled and not sabotaged by Mr "more tests = more cases". And not manipulated to where profit takes priority over public health.

Sadly i do think profit will drive all the decisions here. If the Federal Government simply said to all testing agencies, 'any test where results are not provided within 72 hours will not be reimbursed' you would see a huge change in testing results and thus usefulness of the data.

As it sits now, there simply is no reason to improve turnaround time as they get paid the same regardless. It is a sweet cash cow that many will not want to see end.

I know everyone talks about the lethality rate of this virus, but a statistic that is just as important is hospitalization rates. Over-hospitalizations are what cause lock-downs in the first place, we saw this with Wuhan, then Italy, and then NYC. Anyone have some data to show how much x more times this virus hospitalizes compared to Influenza?

The test I received was Sofia/Quidel.

I read the tweet thread.

It seems like you are still going to need to send the samples to a certified laboratory to do the PCR and analyze the results. Which I assume is a major bottleneck. Given this, I don't see how this streamlines the process significantly.

Great insight.

Glad someone finally thought to consider that factor.

It is one of those weird outlier factors no one thinks to ever raise.

Hmmm...

You obviously haven't read the thread. From the start of this thread, the high hospitalization rates were the cornerstone of the argument that everything would have to lock down (or death rates would soar once hospitals overflow) and that this lockdown would tank the stock market.

Try writing less and reading more, it's better for you and better for everyone else.

Tooth, you are confusing me. I am drunk (as always) and may be making a mistake, but here is what I did though. I used data from France and the U.S. (both shutdown around a similar time).





You said 130k in the first wave for the U.S. I just compared the slope with France and get ~26k deaths around the same time.

America July 1st (end of 1st wave). Confirmed = 2,781,867. Deaths = 130,996. 6x undercount = (2,781,867x6) = 16,691,202. (130,996/16,691,202) = .78% IFR.

France May 8th (end of 1st wave). Confirmed = 138,421. Deaths = 26,206. 6x undercount = (138,421x6) = 830,526. (26,206/830,526) = 3.15% IFR. IFR in France is about 4x higher then the U.S.

Europe numbers come from antibody studies, not confirmed cases, which are close to worthless. France had a 4.3% infection rate = 2.8 million cases

I agree completely, you know how I feel about confirmed cases (Remember the Germany case fatality rate nonsense?). Just trying to figure out how you are coming to this conclusion.

Still does not add up with NY data. I already did the math and don't feel like posting it all. You said 20% in NY and 4.4% in France around May (antibody study was around here). I still get an IFR of around 0.97% in France around May, and an IFR around 1.95% in NY (as of today). Do you think this discrepancy is just due to median-age? EDIT: I made a mistake, I used NYC population instead of NY, my bad.

If you had it at the start of the thread you certainly forgot it later.

You guys are doing all sorts of complex math and humming and hawing while showing great consternation as to what factors it could be. Hmmm? You are completely stymied. lol. What could it be?

All the while completely IGNORING hospitalization rates (being over run) as arguably the most key factor that would speak to differing mortality rates.

If i DID NOT raise it (again) you would still be desperately trying to figure out what, 'oh what', might be contributing to it, with zero considerations of hospitalization rates.

So you are welcome.

We never ignored hospitalizations Cuepee. We said very early on that hospitalizations are what cause countries to shutdown. We have not compared the hospitalization rate to that of Influenza (as far as I am aware), hence why I brought it up. I just knew intuitively from watching NY, Wuhan, and Italy that it did hospitalize at a much higher rate then the Flu.

This hospitalization overrun conversation was talked to death back in March.

Lets be honest and clear here as this discussion was only a few pages back (~page 354) and people can look for themselves.

You and ToothSayer had a running discussion. You were going back and forth with a stated goal of trying to figure out WHY the death rates differed. You were throwing back and forth all sorts of math equations, and concluding the death rate for Covid was "... barely above seasonal Influenza."

I, (that is ME), pointed out numerous times that ANY ATTEMPT to calculate the ANSWER you guys were seeking that DID NOT consider the 'overwhelming the Hospital systems" and that contribution to a rising death rate was FLAWED and WRONG. I stated this numerous times while you guys ignored and kept seeking the answer elsewhere in the data.

Then over a week later you came to this Light Bulb moment insight...

"I know everyone talks about the lethality rate of this virus, but a statistic that is just as important is hospitalization rates. Over-hospitalizations are what cause lock-downs in the first place..."


Which is the idea that EVERYONE is lethality rate while not considering the important factor of hospitalization rate.

"EVERYONE". FLOL.

As you guys said you discussed it early but for whatever reason just dismissed it later as if you determined it was not relevant or key to the calculation and that was wrong.

It is possible that you suddenly had a eureka moment on your own and remembered to consider that KEY factor but more likely with me sticking it in your face over and over, that bell was rung for you guys BY ME.

If you don't want to admit that, that is fine but just don't state it as if no one else was talking about "hospitalization rates" as I will jump in and remind you every time.

Then provide data and a claim with it. Nobody is even disputing that over-hospitalizations have a causative impact on the death rate. Can you show me data so I can see how much of an impact it is having? Also, for the past 20 pages, all I have been trying to do is figure out how many people are going undetected, and if any discrepancy's are found within populations with their death rates, try and find the cause. If you think over-hospitalizations have caused higher IFR's in certain populations, then please show me the data, I would gladly look it. For example, Texas has a very low death rate at the moment, Tooth seems to just think it has to do with the median-age of the infected, is he right? I don't know. With that said, median-age seems to be the #1 factor when it comes to the IFR of a population. EDIT: So you know, we brought up back in the March that over-hospitalizations would cause these shutdowns. We also talked about over-hospitalizations increasing the fatality rate back in March.