Bad news - Re-infection

[Sam Handwich]

Apparently 51 people have been re-infected in South Korea

51 recovered coronavirus patients test positive again in South Korea

At least 51 patients diagnosed as having fully recovered from the coronavirus in South Korea have tested positive a second time after leaving quarantine, according to officials. The patients from D…

nypost.com

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

The same report I read on it yesteday suggested the virus never left their system rather than them being reinfected.

Edit: It also says that in that link.

 

[Frijj]

The director of South Korea's CDC believes it is most likely the case that these patients did not indeed make a full recovery from coronavirus. It is important we differentiate between these two things - in a small proportion of cases, someone who appears to be well may in fact still be infected, that's a different kettle of fish to testing negative for the virus and then later, testing positive again - something which is not believed to be the case here.

If indeed it does transpire that people are testing positive, negative and then positive again, and assuming those results are a true reflection of their actual disease state, then we may have a much larger issue on our hands.

51 recovered coronavirus patients test positive again in South Korea

At least 51 patients diagnosed as having fully recovered from the coronavirus in South Korea have tested positive a second time after leaving quarantine, according to officials. The patients from D…

nypost.com

"For now, the KCDC’s director-general, Jeong Eun-kyeong, believes it is likely the infection was re-activated after remaining dormant in the patients, as opposed to them being reinfected, the report said."

The same report I read on it yesteday suggested the virus never left their system rather than them being reinfected.

This

 

[Sam Handwich]

One would like to think, that is the logical explanation. I think there are a lot of people who think they will only get it the once then be immune

 

[Silly Point]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this fucker just kept infecting people over and over again tbh. Everything about it makes it a nasty little **** from the long incubation period with no symptoms to high infection rate to a complete luck of the draw as to whether you get severe symptoms or not

 

[chuckyroll]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this fucker just kept infecting people over and over again tbh. Everything about it makes it a nasty little **** from the long incubation period to high infection rate to a complete luck of the draw as to whether you get severe symptoms or not

There has to be reasons why some are affected worse than others. Pretty sure they will have the answer eventually too.

 

[SurreyMackem]

I think I have had mild symptoms that have been coming and going since January.

The virus doesn't want to kill you, ideally it wants you to survive to spread the virus.

There are three types of carriers, healthy, asymptomatic who go on the develop the symptoms, and convalescent who can still spread the desease..

 

[Charles Eats Grass]

You could have at least read it before you shared it ffs

 

[Gaggoears]

I think I have had mild symptoms that have been coming and going since January.

The virus doesn't want to kill you, ideally it wants you to survive to spread the virus.

There are three types of carriers, healthy, asymptomatic who go on the develop the symptoms, and convalescent who can still spread the desease..

It does really. It wants to infect every part of your body, as it's not alive I'm guessing it's not thinking I hope this poor sod will pass it on.

 

[The Exile]

There are questions over the reliability of the tests as well aren't there?

 

[Skandhaless]

The director of South Korea's CDC believes it is most likely the case that these patients did not indeed make a full recovery from coronavirus. It is important we differentiate between these two things - in a small proportion of cases, someone who appears to be well may in fact still be infected, that's a different kettle of fish to testing negative for the virus and then later, testing positive again - something which is not believed to be the case here.

If indeed it does transpire that people are testing positive, negative and then positive again, and assuming those results are a true reflection of their actual disease state, then we may have a much larger issue on our hands.

51 recovered coronavirus patients test positive again in South Korea

At least 51 patients diagnosed as having fully recovered from the coronavirus in South Korea have tested positive a second time after leaving quarantine, according to officials. The patients from D…

nypost.com

"For now, the KCDC’s director-general, Jeong Eun-kyeong, believes it is likely the infection was re-activated after remaining dormant in the patients, as opposed to them being reinfected, the report said."




This

A much larger issue is one description . Fucked without a vaccine is what we would be.

 

[humbug]

There are questions over the reliability of the tests as well aren't there?

that's what's in the back of my mind about the lack of testing in this country. perhaps there isn't an accurate test for it and our government is wary of giving out false diagnoses to people.

 

[Skandhaless]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this fucker just kept infecting people over and over again tbh. Everything about it makes it a nasty little **** from the long incubation period with no symptoms to high infection rate to a complete luck of the draw as to whether you get severe symptoms or not

It's a winner in the virus game isnt it

 

[Nookie Bear]

Think this is what happened to me ,due to viral load apparently according to my Doc - Ill for two weeks then a week of feeling about 80% fit before wilfy caught it and my symptoms ramped up again.

 

[rudd]

The director of South Korea's CDC believes it is most likely the case that these patients did not indeed make a full recovery from coronavirus. It is important we differentiate between these two things - in a small proportion of cases, someone who appears to be well may in fact still be infected, that's a different kettle of fish to testing negative for the virus and then later, testing positive again - something which is not believed to be the case here.

If indeed it does transpire that people are testing positive, negative and then positive again, and assuming those results are a true reflection of their actual disease state, then we may have a much larger issue on our hands.

51 recovered coronavirus patients test positive again in South Korea

At least 51 patients diagnosed as having fully recovered from the coronavirus in South Korea have tested positive a second time after leaving quarantine, according to officials. The patients from D…

nypost.com

"For now, the KCDC’s director-general, Jeong Eun-kyeong, believes it is likely the infection was re-activated after remaining dormant in the patients, as opposed to them being reinfected, the report said."




This

I've seen a lot of people concerned about what they believe to be false negatives.

 

[look out piano]

Think this is what happened to me ,due to viral load apparently according to my Doc - Ill for two weeks then a week of feeling about 80% fit before wilfy caught it and my symptoms ramped up again.

 

[SurreyMackem]

It does really. It wants to infect every part of your body, as it's not alive I'm guessing it's not thinking I hope this poor sod will pass it on.

It doesn't think but it does want to survive and it won't if it kills you.

Its the bodies own immune response to the virus that is causing the severe cases and deaths.

 

[Morse]

It does really. It wants to infect every part of your body, as it's not alive I'm guessing it's not thinking I hope this poor sod will pass it on.

It is alive, mind. Not sentient, but alive nonetheless.

 

[JamesTu]

It is alive, mind. Not sentient, but alive nonetheless.

According to our definition of ‘alive’ it isn’t.

 

[Morse]

According to our definition of ‘alive’ it isn’t.

The word ‘alive’ is convenient to differentiate between it and, say, a chemical agent. It’s difficult to describe a virus, especially to the general public. Some experts consider it a form of life. I’m not an expert, but as a lay person I think it’s a definition that suits until a better term comes along.