Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: QUESTION: Wouldnt any CV19 vaccine have to be 98% effective vs 50% effective like some Flu vaccines? [View all]Ms. Toad
(38,666 posts)22. No it disproves your point.
You said:
The reports I have seen are that people have tested positive, then negative, then positive again, without symptoms on the first test.
This does NOT mean they had COVID twice - much more likely that the first test was a false positive
This does NOT mean they had COVID twice - much more likely that the first test was a false positive
From the article I linked to:
Two patients in New Jersey, for instance, appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection. Daniel Griffin, a physician and researcher at Columbia University in New York, recently described a case of presumed reinfection on the This Week in Virology podcast.
It is possible, but unlikely, that my patient had a single infection that lasted three months. Some Covid-19 patients (now dubbed long haulers) do appear to suffer persistent infections and symptoms.
My patient, however, cleared his infection he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection and felt healthy for nearly six weeks.
It is possible, but unlikely, that my patient had a single infection that lasted three months. Some Covid-19 patients (now dubbed long haulers) do appear to suffer persistent infections and symptoms.
My patient, however, cleared his infection he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection and felt healthy for nearly six weeks.
First, it was three patients - not one. One patient is specifically discussed, but two more are identified.
For the patient specifically discussed, the second illnesses came nearly two months after the first.
They actually had significant symptoms (not a false positive test without symptoms)
They tested negative between the first and second illness.
They they had worse symptoms and tested positive again (again, not a false positive test without symptoms)
Following the link in the article would have taken you to this description of the two additional patients referenced:
https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/monmouth/news/central-jersey-doctor-reports-patients-reinfected-with-coronavirus/790555/
Ditchek said the first patient had COVID-19 a few months ago, tested negative for months in between, went to a party last weekend, and then tested positive for coronavirus this week. "So that is a reinfection," the doctor said.
. . .
Ditchek said he encountered a second reinfected patient on Wednesday from the same family. This patient had accumulated so many antibodies from his previous COVID-19 infection that he was able to donate plasma to other coronavirus patients two times.
"He'd been negative for seven weeks and sure enough was re-exposed," Ditchek said, and diagnosed positive for COVID-19 this week.
. . .
Ditchek said he encountered a second reinfected patient on Wednesday from the same family. This patient had accumulated so many antibodies from his previous COVID-19 infection that he was able to donate plasma to other coronavirus patients two times.
"He'd been negative for seven weeks and sure enough was re-exposed," Ditchek said, and diagnosed positive for COVID-19 this week.
That is not at all the situation you have described. It is the situation you say is not happening.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
QUESTION: Wouldnt any CV19 vaccine have to be 98% effective vs 50% effective like some Flu vaccines? [View all]
uponit7771
Jul 2020
OP
thx, I was thinking this when I heard the vaccine shenanigans in the British study where they test
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#3
CDC says median R0 for CV19 is 6 (link) not three ... does that change anything? tia
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#4
Looks like they're were figuring for median Ro vs relative Ro that the median Ro is still sky high..
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#18
+1, this is what I'm seeing too. There are way too many studies showing immunity doesn't last
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#7
That link proves my point- 1 patient, small number of other patients in inconclusive research
Fiendish Thingy
Jul 2020
#19
No, the Spanish study was 60,000 people who were tested for immunity (link) do NOT retain it
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#20
I have never heard of a vaccine that is 50% effective- maybe 50/50 chance of effectiveness?
Fiendish Thingy
Jul 2020
#6
From AAFP: CDC Releases Interim Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Report (link) looks like its even less ...
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#12
Yes, I'm thinking absolute protection seeing this even a little bit of CV19 becomes horrible to ...
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#24
early aids drugs were a cocktail mix to treat the symptoms, not provide immunity
beachbumbob
Jul 2020
#23
Its black and white as far as we know when it comes to transmission, that's an black/white that even
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#25
50% effectiveness doesn't mean the same no. of people get it but it contains their symptoms halfway
gollygee
Jul 2020
#49
Is that 50% per capita? It all depends on the per capita. There are many types of per capita.
Midnight Writer
Jul 2020
#26
I have a rational skepticism of anyone claiming not to be an anti-vaxxer, but using language like
Aristus
Jul 2020
#29
"... in the past sure it happened... " WTF? That's the point of my statement you can't dismiss what
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#30
I disagree 100%, Abbot labs lack of accuracy in CV19 test has most likely not been a net positive
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#33
There's going to be a huge potential for miscommunication if a vaccine is developed
Aristus
Jul 2020
#34
Not if its absolute immunity, that does no one good with the Case Fatality Rate is so high and the
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#38
That's not the median Ro that's a relative one. The median Ro is 6 is from the CDC and not 2.5
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#50
...or people who give Trump too much of the benefit of the doubt that he or his pharma cronies ...
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#39
I'm operating on the belief those engineering the vaccine aren't exclusively Trump cronies
BannonsLiver
Jul 2020
#41
Not the engineers but the heads of the pharma companies are too involved with Trump admin on some
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#47
... Trump doesn't do science or scientist IE the reasons I'm rationally skeptical about anything ..
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#44
True, his pharma cronies are involved in working on one though. It sounds like I'll look for an
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#54
They can be both if its the guy who's associated with opperation warp speed and they sold their
uponit7771
Jul 2020
#58