A Man Caught Coronavirus Twice -- and It Was Worse the Second Time 253
According to a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, a man in the U.S. caught COVID-19 for a second time and had a worse bout of illness. MIT Technology Review reports: The 25-year-old man tested positive for the first time on April 18, after experiencing several weeks of symptoms including sore throat, cough, headache, nausea, and diarrhea. He felt fully recovered by April 27, and tested negative for the virus on both May 9 and 26. But just two days later, on May 28, he developed symptoms again, this time with fever and dizziness too. He tested positive on June 5 and needed to be hospitalized after his lungs were unable to get enough oxygen into his body, causing hypoxia and shortness of breath. He had no underlying health conditions. The man has now recovered.
Being infected once does not mean you're protected from being infected again, even if such cases are still vanishingly rare, with just five identified out of nearly 40 million confirmed cases worldwide. That means people who have had covid-19 still need to stay vigilant, following the advice on social distancing, wearing face masks, and avoiding crowded, poorly ventilated spaces. This was not altogether unexpected: coronavirus experts warned us that other coronaviruses, such as the common cold, are seasonal. However, there are still many questions that researchers are racing to answer. How much protection does having covid-19 confer? Is that mainly through antibodies or T cells? How long does protection last? What does it mean for the medical treatments that are being developed, or for vaccines? Will we all require a yearly shot rather than a one-off vaccine, for example? If nothing else, this new case is a reminder of how much about this virus we still don't know.
Being infected once does not mean you're protected from being infected again, even if such cases are still vanishingly rare, with just five identified out of nearly 40 million confirmed cases worldwide. That means people who have had covid-19 still need to stay vigilant, following the advice on social distancing, wearing face masks, and avoiding crowded, poorly ventilated spaces. This was not altogether unexpected: coronavirus experts warned us that other coronaviruses, such as the common cold, are seasonal. However, there are still many questions that researchers are racing to answer. How much protection does having covid-19 confer? Is that mainly through antibodies or T cells? How long does protection last? What does it mean for the medical treatments that are being developed, or for vaccines? Will we all require a yearly shot rather than a one-off vaccine, for example? If nothing else, this new case is a reminder of how much about this virus we still don't know.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Vaccines are never 100% (Score:3)
A dirty little secret is that vaccinations are never 100% effective either. Even for things like polio, measles, etc... It's just up around 90% or so, such that if most of the population is vaccinationated, you're unlikely to actually be exposed if you're part of that unlucky 10%(or 5% or whatever).
There's a reason why most vaccinations require multiple injections and boosters later in life.
Now, it does tend to make the disease less serious even if it doesn't make you immune, but note that I said "tend".
Re: (Score:3)
A dirty little secret is that vaccinations are never 100% effective either.
You do not need perfection. Good enough will do. Vaccines have been enormously successful in virtually eliminating diseases that used to kill or disable millions of people. I think those results show that 90% or so effectiveness is fit for purpose.
Same as Mumps and we have a mumps vaccine (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it means a vaccine won't create immunity in 100% of the cases, which is true of every vaccine.
The point of a vaccine isn't to give you perfect protection; if it were *all* vaccines would be useless. It's to reduce your chances of getting sick, and to establish herd immunity in the population.
Re: (Score:2)
You're always reliable for some amusing hyperbole.
ONE person (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the detection process unreliability
There is nothing unreliable in the detection process, at least not in this case. They sequenced the genome, facepalm.
We just don't understand immunity that well (Score:2)
It would have been good to do a serology test 2nd time at least.
Same goes for the flu (Score:5, Informative)
It may not be common knowledge, but the same can be said for the flu; past infection does not guarantee future immunity ( to the same strain ), but given the numbers it's fair to assume you'll have a moderate amount of resistance to the immediate strain, as well as the current season's ancillaries.
It would be exceptional if that WEREN'T true, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't mix misinformation together. Past infection from a specific virus that makes up seasonal flu provides you immunity against that specific virus. Influenza is large mix of different viruses working their way through the population at different rates. This is also why vaccination against that virus is an imperfect estimation against which strain is likely to be prevalent in a given hemisphere a given year.
COVID-19 is caused by one virus, which currently have two prevalent strains and an overwhelmi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as most people simply bear through the flu, never reporting it to anyone, we have no idea if people can or do get reinfected with the same virus.
Statistics are everything here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Being infected once does not mean you're protected from being infected again, even if such cases are still vanishingly rare, with just five identified out of nearly 40 million confirmed cases worldwide.
But that's the million dollar question that really needs to be answered: is it vanishingly rare to get re-infected? If the answer is "yes", then for all practical purposes, we can ignore it. There is also a vanishingly rare chance you will get chicken pox twice, or the measles twice, but that's so uncommon, we just forget about it. On the other hand, if you're almost as likely to catch COVID-19 a second time as you are a first time, that has huge implications for how this disease should be managed. We really need to know one way or the other, and this summary seems to suggest that it really doesn't matter whether this is a vanishinly rare thing, or a common thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like getting hit by lightning twice!
I guess we don't know yet now many versions of COVID you can get in a row before being safe. If you go from 1-in-a-million chance of getting it the first time, to 1-in-2-millions chance the second time, the risk didn't go down much.
It'd take the chance if the second time was 1-in-a-billion, that's enough order of magnitude to feel safe.
Re:Statistics are everything here. (Score:5, Funny)
It's 2020, can't rule that shit out
Re: (Score:2)
There actually is a guy who got hit by lightning twice and survived it both times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Statistics are everything here. (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.guinnessworldrecor... [guinnessworldrecords.com]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Statistics are everything here. (Score:3)
You probably mean Benjamin Franklin...
The wiki has this little gem:
The church tower of many European cities, which was usually the highest structure in the city, was likely to be hit by lightning. Early on, Christian churches tried to prevent the occurrence of the damaging effects of lightning by prayers. Peter Ahlwardts ("Reasonable and Theological Considerations about Thunder and Lightning", 1745) advised individuals seeking cover from lightning to go anywhere except in or around a church.[4]
As A. Azimov
Re: (Score:2)
Summary says 5 cases of re-infection in 40 million cases. That's 1 in 8M probability of getting COVID-19 twice (not dying, since the article didn't say now many of the 5 died, if any) which is less than half the probability of being killed in a car accident in the United States in a single day (pre covid stats say ~100 fatal accidents per day, so 1 in 3.3M every day).
Re: (Score:2)
5 known cases. For a virus that we have been studying for less than a year.
I think some caution may well be advised. Until we know more about about how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with the human body, what we know now is: reinfection at least is possible.
More research will tell us how common it is, and what the countermeasures might be. In the meantime, with the virus still rampaging through the population, urging caution seems to be common sense to me.
caught it last week (Score:2)
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Being infected once does not mean you're protected from being infected again, even if such cases are still vanishingly rare,"
Does anyone deny that? Anyone who follows infectious disease knows that a very small portion of the public, with ANY pathogen, will not develop immunity the first exposure, second exposure, and sometimes ever. Probably because their immune systems were probably malfunctioning or weak. It happens. So?
This sounds like just more unnecessary scare tactics. Until we have a vaccine and/or ample herd immunity, we have to be cautious. These 0.0001% people (or whatever the "vanishingly small" percent actually might be) can spread the pathogen when re-infected just like the people who were never exposed and then catch it.
>"If nothing else, this new case is a reminder of how much about this virus we still don't know. "
Um, we already know this is true about ALL pathogens through all recorded history, that some very tiny portion of people will not gain immunity. So how does THIS tell us something we don't already know rather than confirm something we do already know?
Re: (Score:2)
Blind panic is obviously not helpful, but at the same time this casts serious doubts over the idea that the issue would blow over when vaccines become widely s
Premature speculation (Score:3)
I've had the flu multiple times in my life. I get a cold 1-2x a year. Most people do. Getting something once doesn't magically make you immune. We all know this.
I hope people also know that no single solution will solve this. A vaccine won't protect against mutations and sometimes it just won't work for some percentage of people, so we need to do proper quarantine procedures. Social distancing is not sustainable, but we're going to have to settle for it while we're waiting on the vaccine. I am sure they will come out with interesting drugs to treat it so that it goes from fatal to just miserable for vulnerable patients.
This is like 9/11 (was for Americans). We're not going back to normal anytime soon. This is a long term disruptive change to our daily lives. It'll get better every year, but be prepared. Life will be distinctly different before 2019 and after for at least a decade.
I see the way forward as a mixture of vaccine, better drugs for treatment, better public hygiene and sanitation, and some disruptive changes for those who get infected, like quarantining, contact tracing, and social distancing. This is interesting news and data, but I don't think it should affect anyone's decisions or sense of well-being.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible somebody tested positive after being tested before, such as work protocol, but then falls ill enough later to make a hospital visit, where they confirm the second one. If reinfections were common, that situation would pop up fairly often.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, reinfection is almost impossible and doesn't happen, known already. Keep up, there is no problem. There will always be the 1 in a million outlier. Of course there will be mutations, this virus is a mutation of something that happened before, SARS.
Re: (Score:2)
<citation needed>
But... but... but. (Score:3, Funny)
But Trump said he's immune! He said he's very immune, maybe even fully immune. Some say the most immune since Honest Abe Lincoln.
Re: (Score:2)
What is with the reinfection nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like the media just likes to promote this garbage to scare people. A few outliers isn't worth anyone's time. Currently no data exists to suggest it is worth while for anyone who has had covid to assume they are not immune.
Being infected once does not mean you're protected from being infected again, even if such cases are still vanishingly rare, with just five identified out of nearly 40 million confirmed cases worldwide. That means people who have had covid-19 still need to stay vigilant, following the advice on social distancing, wearing face masks, and avoiding crowded, poorly ventilated spaces.
No fuck that. It's counterproductive to take the same precautions when the risk to yourself and others is "vanishingly rare".
Wrong! (Score:2)
1 in 8 million is the sort of rate you see for ultra-rare genetic disorders and random mutations. Definitely not the sort of incidence you build policy on. Hell, it could be a simple statistical anomaly representing the five times multiple tests returned false positives (or samples were mislabeled, contaminated, etc.), and they simply had a misdiagnosed cold the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear.
This is important to document, and study for virologists and epidemiologist.
This information is 100% irrelevant and should be ignore by the public.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be a few outliers, or else it might be entire cities [reuters.com].
Simple answer (Score:2)
The simple answer is that he likely never healed fully the first time. Early tests were notoriously inaccurate, it was a problem suffered all over the world. It's entirely reasonable that he got two false negatives in a row. It's also possible that he caught a couple of different variants of it.
Think of it as being like a cold, which you can catch time and time again. Because it is a variation of the cold. We've never had a vaccine for the cold and we don't have any reasonable basis to think we ever would.
It wasn't the same Coronavirus! (Score:2)
That would be almost impossibly unlikely
It was just like with the flu, where every year there comes a new bunch of mutations around. Some worse, some less bad. AFAIK most recent strains are less bad but more infectious (makes sense, evolutionary-wise). So it would be interesting if this strain was worse. (And it would not be a successful strain.)
Plis, oeople change over time too. E.g. were his lungs weakened from th first time? Did he start smoking?
So I really don't appreciate those "Plaing stupid to bait p
Re: (Score:2)
Not impossible though. There really are outlier cases, such as people who had chickenpox twice. Sometimes the extremely unllikely happens and people get reinfected with something when 99.9999% of people won't. Of course the media tries to make hooplah over fear and misfortune.
Chickenpox multiple times (Score:3)
As a note, "chickenpox twice" is actually fairly common. It's just that the second case is generally known as "shingles", as virus left in the spine reactivates after like 40-50 years when you have a stress event that weakens the immune system.
That said, I have a relative who has an immune system that refused to memorize varicella-zoster. She had chickenpox six times as a child.
Given the observed reinfection rates, I'm with the others, it can be just down to the quirks of the few immune systems. At this
elderly woman died from the second infection (Score:2)
What the MIT Article Doesn't Explain (Score:2)
There's that old saying, "Once bitten, twice shy..."
If the man became infected first time around for failing to follow safety guidelines, but then didn't change his behavior, it seems quite likely to imagine he is putting himself at risk of a second infection.
We know that the virus is mutating as it moves between hosts, so it is entirely likely that even if this 25-year-old developed anti-bodies to the first strain, it i
A single example (Score:2)
...doesn't mean we should all be hiding under our beds in the fetal position because of it.
There are examples of babies born with hideous birth defects resulting in a lifetime of medical issues. That doesn't stop us making children.
Math (Score:2)
with just five identified out of nearly 40 million confirmed cases worldwide. That means people who have had covid-19 still need to stay vigilant
Disagreed. A reinfection rate of one in eight million means people DO NOT have to worry about this.
Slashdot summary missed an important point (Score:2)
There are lots of open questions that we can't answer with an N of 1, but this does show us that there are multiple variants of Covid19 circulating at least in Nevada.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So negative test couldn't have been flawed? (Score:5, Informative)
Findings
The patient had two positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, the first on April 18, 2020, and the second on June 5, 2020, separated by two negative tests done during follow-up in May, 2020. Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 showed genetically significant differences between each variant associated with each instance of infection. The second infection was symptomatically more severe than the first.
Interpretation
Genetic discordance of the two SARS-CoV-2 specimens was greater than could be accounted for by short-term in vivo evolution. These findings suggest that the patient was infected by SARS-CoV-2 on two separate occasions by a genetically distinct virus. Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases. All individuals, whether previously diagnosed with COVID-19 or not, should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2. The implications of reinfections could be relevant for vaccine development and application.
Re: So negative test couldn't have been flawed? (Score:2)
Re: So negative test couldn't have been flawed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So negative test couldn't have been flawed? (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't live their lives based on a 1 in a million, let alone lower chances than that.
You've clearly never had to stand in line at a gas station while some jackass insists on filling out their stack of Pick 5 lottery slips while everyone else waits. I suppose the thing to take away from this all is that people who DO live their lives with excessive concern towards outcomes with infinitesimal odds are, at best, annoying.
Re: So negative test couldn't have been flawed? (Score:2)
Yes, because we all know the potential negative consequences of buying a few losing lotto tickets is equivalent to potential consequences of catching and then re-catching a virus for which there is no known cure.
What type of test? (Score:2)
There are two. One that looks for the virus, another that looks for the antibodies.
If the former, it is possible that he had almost had it beaten so no viruses were detected and then it came back. And for the antibodies, whether he developed a new set to fight the virus a second time -- not sure how easily they can tell.
I wonder if the second strain was a known one? You would be pretty unlucky to catch the virus twice from two different sources. But maybe that is why he was one in a million.
The body pro
Re: (Score:2)
People don't live their lives based on a 1 in a million, let alone lower chances than that.
People don't, but governments do. They operate lotteries, budget for them, employ people to run them, etc.
In a discussion about epidemiology, which is concerned with the population-level impacts, individual opinions about the likelihood of self-reinfection are less meaningful. Regardless of what people "can count on", when it comes to matters of public policy, evidence of reinfection during a time period of significant mitigation (social distancing, masks, lockdown, etc.) raises even more concerns about
Re: (Score:2)
or it is the start of the implied reinfection, that causes us to "remain vigilant". The knokc-on effect of this is that we should abolutely stop being vigilant and get back to normal if this is the case, like flu, there will never be a vaccine that stops it, so we are just living in a new world with 2 deadly viruses (note the 1989 flu pandemic killed more people than sars-cov-s has)
But I have a feeling lockdowns, masks and the hysterical ranting that we're all going to die if we just dont; do as our new zoo
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases.
The findings from the Belgian reinfection case a couple of months ago seem to point that you can get re-infected with the same strain if your symptoms were mild enough the first time you got it as the body never formed a proper immune response in the first place.
To date all re-infections have been worse than the initial one. In the Netherlands someone died from a reinfection today (but she did have other medical issues), but regardless she survived the first infection.
Re: (Score:2)
To date all re-infections have been worse than the initial one.
It's fair to say all the re-infections that are publicly documented.
If you had a bad round of COVID-19, you may presume 'safe' and then when you have mild symptoms later, you assume "can't be covid, already had it, must be a flu" and may be less aggressive about seeking diagnosis and a test.
Broadly speaking, the population of known re-infections is too small to draw *any* conclusion short of 'you are not absolutely guaranteed immunity from all sars-cov-2 strains by recovering from one'.
Re: So negative test couldn't have been flawed? (Score:2)
There were two negative results before he tested positive again. Sure, they could have both been wrong. Your reply suggests you thought there was just one negative test, though.
Anyway, this is exactly why people shouldn't go around saying they are "cured" after testing negative a few times and throw caution to the wind. We don't know enough yet, unfortunately. We also know the tests are not always accurate.
Re: I am not a denier at all (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They sequenced the virus to verify it was not the same strain, thus verifying he caught it twice.
Yes but they were so close together is it possible that he caught the second strain before his body had a chance to develop a full-power immune response to the first and in terms of severity is it any wonder that the second time around was worse since he had not fully recovered from fighting off the first.
However, regardless, given the number of cases out there if only a tiny handful of people have caught it twice then clearly we do generally get immunity from it and there are only a few freak cases of
Re: I am not a denier at all (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably study immunology before making claims like that.
What specifically do you have a problem with in the parent's statement?
The cases in Belgium and the Netherlands seems to confirm that if you don't have strong reactions to the virus you don't form a proper immune response, these are statements by the government's medical authorities. The statements from drug companies to date have been that the couple of strains in the wild are similar enough that immune response from one will afford protection to the other. So those are experts at least providing weight to
Re: I am not a denier at all (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but they were so close together is it possible that he caught the second strain before his body had a chance to develop a full-power immune response to the first
Plausible, but given to date every case of re-infection has been the result of people who had the Asian variant (D-variant) and then catching the European variant (G-variant) or vis versa there's no evidence that catching one makes you immune from the other.
Mind you there's some truth to what you say. So far every case of re-infection has only occurred where the symptoms were mild the first time round. Surprise surprise us feeling like shit is the immune response generally, so if we don't have a high fever
Re: (Score:2)
Plausible, but given to date every case of re-infection has been the result of people who had the Asian variant (D-variant) and then catching the European variant (G-variant) or vis versa there's no evidence that catching one makes you immune from the other.
Interesting. Are there areas where both strains are circulating in large numbers and so we would expect to see people exposed to both, and hence lots of potential reinfections, or are most regions dominated by one strain or the other? The other question this raises is whether the vaccines under development are targetting a mixture of the strains?
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, PCR tests don't tell you if you've contracted the disease, they only tell if the RNA was present in your sinus cavity.
The presence of the appropriate RNA is a necessary precondition for catching COVID, but not a sufficient one. The virus also needs to invade a cell and establish a colony in the body.
That means that some people will get randomly sick with random crap, inhale a virus particle, and get a positive PCR test even though they aren't really infected and their body isn't learning to
Re: I am not a denier at all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but these 2 dates are simply too close.
Why? If it's two different strains then it's possible to catch them simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention "several weeks" between Apr 18 - Apr 27 - that is .... 9 days.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, never mind - read it wrong. He has been tested after several weeks of symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
but these 2 dates are simply too close.
Slashdot editors unfortunately missed one of the most important points of the article.
Namely, this individual caught two different strains of Covid19. This was confirmed by the RNA sequencing of the virus from each swab. The article itself goes into detail on the certainty of the sequencing results (with links to raw data for those who want to evaluate it on their own) and the probability of that happening any other way.
So indeed he did catch it twice. Now what this doesn't tell us is what immunit
Re: (Score:3)
OK, we should be able to clear up your borderline denial fairly easily here.
How about the Israeli doctor [the-sun.com] who caught it in April, tested clean in May and June, and then was reinfected in July?
The article even notes the following as a possible explanation:
recent studies that appear to show antibody levels dropping off after two to three months
Depending on how common this drop off is, we might not get relief from a vaccine.
If a vaccine is only effective for a matter of months---which we don't know yet since one isn't even approved---we'd need to vaccinate a lot of people in a very short period of
Re: (Score:2)
Both options are not great - but good data is useful. I feel like we're lacking that.
Re: (Score:2)
We've got lots of data, it's the "good" part that's lacking. If only there were an organization that all the countries of the world could turn to for advice on normalizing the procedures, maybe call it the Organization for World Health or something, fund it adequately and put it under whatever took the place of the League of Nations. /s
Re: I am not a denier at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Isnâ(TM)t it disappointing that we are no better informed today than we were in February?
Yes, it's disappointing. However it's not disappointing with the scientists - they know much more. It's disappointing with humanity but especially Slashdot mods. The article linked to clearly states:
That means that there were two separate infections, basically with 100% certainty. You can even use genomic differences to trace the different tracks that the infections arrived by which New Zealand and China do regularly.
So why am I disappointed? We have a person who didn't read the article, is speculating from ignorance without even stating their lack of reading into this and enough Slashdot mods have moderated it without bothering to know their subject (note - +5 "insightful", not +5 "interesting" - this is an actual mod failure, not just a case of someone adding to the debate) that it's discrediting us. Please make an effort to study and understand what's going on. The knowledge is out there and is reasonably clear from reputable sources like the BMJ and the Lancet. Even the United States Center for Disease Control despite restrictions from Trump has been putting out plenty of good information. There is no excuse for being "no better informed today than we were in February".
Re:I am not a denier at all (Score:5, Informative)
the original infection that occurred in March kept him sick until he finally required hospitalization in June?
That didn't happen.
They sequenced both virus strains and found significant differences.
The 2nd infection was a different strain.
Go to the summary and click on the link to the Lancet article.
Re: I am not a denier at all (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately for you, denier, they isolated and sequenced the virus both times.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that one guy just can't form immune responses for whatever reason.
My guesswork is that one of three things happened:
That one guy formed an immune response and it cleared the first virus. The immunity was lost quickly and didn't prevent the second infection.
That one guy formed an immune response and it cleared the first virus, yet it failed to prevent infection against a slightly altered virus the second time.
The one guy never completely cleared the first infection, it was in remission until the second outbreak.
Re: (Score:3)
You never want to go full-Lynwoodrooster, especially not this early in the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. I apparently infected feral dogs who had eaten sick/dead bats, where it's an intestinal bug. After a couple of years mutated to be able to pass to humans.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a different stain in the second infection.
Re:Tests (Score:5, Informative)
It's also possible the tests are unreliable. He may have had *a* corona virus that triggered a positive, but not COVID-19, in either instance.
Sure, apart from the fact they sequenced the genome both times so know exactly what he had.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this isn't in part what's causing the incredibly high incidence of death in Peru. My wife has relatives dropping like flies, and her brother has apparently caught it twice (and survived, fortunately).
Re: Uh oh time to shut down everything again (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you offer an alternative to wiping out GDP?
* Stock market goes up even when productivity collapsed. (Q.E.D. it's a horseshit metric for the economy)
Re: Uh oh time to shut down everything again (Score:5, Insightful)
* Stock market goes up even when productivity collapsed.
The government is easing monetary policy to keep the economy going. A side effect of loose money is asset price inflation. So the stock market is going up. So are housing prices.
Pedantic nitpick: Productivity did NOT collapse. Productivity is the ratio of economic output to hours worked. Productivity has actually gone UP. It is the hours worked that has collapsed.
(Q.E.D. it's a horseshit metric for the economy)
The stock market can be a good metric if you understand what it is measuring.
Re: Uh oh time to shut down everything again (Score:5, Informative)
Do you offer an alternative to wiping out GDP?
* Stock market goes up even when productivity collapsed. (Q.E.D. it's a horseshit metric for the economy)
In countries, like Germany, where there has been an effective track and trace mechanism they have managed to contain the virus with very limited damage to the economy. The problem is that the "opponents of lockdown" who are actually not just opposed to lockdown, but to basic public health measures like masks and social distancing, try to compare between the economy in 2019 and the economy with lockdown.
The comparison we need to make is between the economy with no action - see Brazil, India and Iran, and the economy with coordinated government action. When there's no government action then individual people, especially older and richer people who have a high virus risk stay home, hiding and waiting for the virus to go away. Since they tend to be in management or company ownership they keep on earning and getting richer but their money doesn't go out into the economy. This also applies to their relatives who tend to be high spenders.
So, compare the devastation of the Iranian (or even UK) economy without decent action with the reasonable success of the German economy with action and suddenly you'll begin to understand that acting on coronavirus is an economic benefit.
For a more fair comparison in easier conditions, take Finland and Sweden, where Sweden has slightly more economic damage and has lost more people. Sweden also seems to be going back into a second wave.
Re: (Score:2)
India has actually taken very harsh action starting very early [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately they are poor enough that lots of people need to work or else starve. So their lockdown was never complete enough to stop the virus spread, only slow it.
Re: Uh oh time to shut down everything again (Score:3)
Sweden has twice as many people as Finland, but has had 16x more deaths and many more chronic cases. The argument was that theyâ(TM)d accept the deaths up-front and get herd immunity without the economic damage. Instead, their borders were closed longer than anyoneâ(TM)s, they never reached herd immunity, it may be possible that herd immunity is not possible with this virus, and treatments and vaccines are likely to have made Swedenâ(TM)s deaths completely unnecessary.
To voluntarily emulate t
Re: Uh oh time to shut down everything again (Score:2)
We also donâ(TM)t have to tell the govt when and where we are taking shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said you should be scared? It's just information that's been discovered, and you're putting words in the messengers mouth. I don't wear a mask because I'm scared. I wear a mask because it helps keep the numbers down. Knowing it's possible, if statistically exceedingly unlikely, to get it again just means it isn't a full get out of jail free card for the minor inconvenience of following basic health guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said you should be scared?
TFS did.
"People who have had covid-19 still need to stay vigilant, following the advice on social distancing, wearing face masks, and avoiding crowded, poorly ventilated spaces."
These precautions are silly. The odds of re-infection are one-in-ten-million. Worrying about that is like refusing to go outside because you might be struck by lightning, which is actually more likely than catching Covid twice.
Re: (Score:2)
TFS did.
"People who have had covid-19 still need to stay vigilant, following the advice on social distancing, wearing face masks, and avoiding crowded, poorly ventilated spaces."
Nope, there is noting in this quote of yours that indicates or hints "to be scared" - seriously if you are scared buy such bullshit you need mental help.
Re: Translation (Score:3)
Why? I personally know one nurse who caught covid in June. Was at home on supplemental oxygen and is still recovering. She was clear 14 days later. Her long term health issues because of covid are now months old.
The majority of people who received oxygen during covid are having long term health's problems which make them susceptible to future respiratory issues.
Guess what Trump has received recently? He thinks he has recovered but his cough and shortness of breath aren't ever going away.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. If they received oxygen, they had major lung complications. Its not surprising that they have longer term respiratory issues.
Whats important is that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections do not lead to oxygen requirements.
The majority of Influenza patients who received oxygen during their ICU hospitalization most likely also have longer recovery times than most Influenza infected subjects.
Trump did not have major respiratory issues, according to his doctors. Most of his treatments where
You're suspicious of the truth? (Score:2)
Let me guess, you think Hillary is going to be arrested any day now.
Re:The Lancet (Score:5, Insightful)
And the retraction is bad because...?
If you want blind certainty and an unwillingness to admit mistakes, religion is just over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny I did not hear they started printing actual information again. After their past ventures into propaganda.
What are you thinking about?
Re: Sensationalism story (Score:2)
You meant to say: detection of repeat infections appear quite rare so far. Anything else is unclear at this time.
Re: (Score:2)