Columbia U: Risk of Coronavirus Reinfection Remains After Recovery

3,013 Views | 18 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Proposition Joe
Jmiller
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:29a, 5/17/20
Apr. 29 2020
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/risk-coronavirus-reinfection-remains-after-recovery
Quote:
New research by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health experts finds that reinfections with endemic coronaviruses are not uncommon, even within a year of prior infection. The study on the four endemic coronavirusesnot including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19found that when reinfection occurred, it was not associated with less severe symptoms. Instead, genetic factors may be a greater determinant of the severity of an infection. Individuals who were asymptomatic during their first infection did not experience symptoms during subsequent infections, and members of the same family reported similar symptom severity.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jls106/galanti_shaman_ms_supp.pdf
Quote:
Findings
During the study, 12 individuals tested positive multiple times for the same coronavirus. We found no significant difference between the probability of testing positive at least once and the probability of a recurrence for the beta-coronaviruses HKU1 and OC43 at 34 weeks after enrollment/first infection. We also found no significant association between repeat infections and symptom severity but strong association between symptom severity and belonging to the same family.

Interpretation
This study provides evidence that re-infections with the same endemic coronavirus are not
atypical in a time window shorter than 1 year and that the genetic basis of innate immune response may be a greater determinant of infection severity than immune memory acquired after a previous infection.
Reply Quote
2
Diyala Nick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54a, 5/17/20
AG
Prof Stan Pearlman at U of Iowa is a leading researcher in corona viruses. His take is reinfection is likely, but the likely of symptoms being as severe is low due to t cells and b cell memory. I would be suspicious of drawing conclusions from a sample size of 12 using common corona viruses (that almost never lead to ARDS).
Reply Quote
14
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to John Galt 04 • 11:55a, 5/17/20
AG
According to the Dutch study, more like 99.993% for my age group
Reply Quote
1
Jmiller
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Diyala Nick • 12:08p, 5/17/20
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-twice-reinfection/
Quote:
Asked if people can get COVID-19 twice, Dr. Stanley Perlman, who has been studying coronaviruses like SARS and MERS for nearly 40 years, said, "I don't think we know the answer to that yet."
Quote:
Responding to the data from South Korea about people retesting positive for the virus, Perlman said, "The question is whether it really is reactivation or it's low-level infection that was not detected for a period of time and now is detected."
Reply Quote
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:56p, 5/17/20
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sisyphus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NorthFultonAg07 • 4:06p, 5/19/20
NorthFultonAg07 said:
Who cares anymore. Open back up! I could die sitting in my chair or i can die living life!
Edit to ask what the point of you starting a thread on this when there are already threads on this?

I care. I agree that states can and should start to open up (as most are) but I also want to learn as much as I can in make informed decisions as to what activities my children and I should do.

BTW, the study is good news for opening up more. Early on, we didn't know if this virus could be worse for you on reinfection the way that Dengue Fever is. A 12 person study isn't a good set of data to make broad characterizations but it's encouraging that the severity of symptoms didn't get worse a second time.
Reply Quote
6
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sisyphus • 4:22p, 5/19/20
Sisyphus said:
NorthFultonAg07 said:
Who cares anymore. Open back up! I could die sitting in my chair or i can die living life!
Edit to ask what the point of you starting a thread on this when there are already threads on this?

I care. I agree that states can and should start to open up (as most are) but I also want to learn as much as I can in make informed decisions as to what activities my children and I should do.

BTW, the study is good news for opening up more. Early on, we didn't know if this virus could be worse for you on reinfection the way that Dengue Fever is. A 12 person study isn't a good set of data to make broad characterizations but it's encouraging that the severity of symptoms didn't get worse a second time.


My question to you is what will make you feel safe to venture out? More and more info is coming in that completely discounts much of the original hysteria. So outside of a cure or vaccine what would make you feel safe?
Reply Quote
One Eyed Reveille
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:44p, 5/19/20
AG
Isnt this true for the flu. Even a vaccine is not intended just to prevent you from getting it But from lessening the symptons when ypu do. It is why it is claimed as less than 100% effective
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jmiller • 6:27p, 5/19/20
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sisyphus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Detmersdislocatedshoulder • 11:41a, 5/20/20
Quote:
My question to you is what will make you feel safe to venture out? More and more info is coming in that completely discounts much of the original hysteria. So outside of a cure or vaccine what would make you feel safe?

I don't see it as a binary choice. I have to balance the risk against the reward for going out for specific cases.

For example: is it safe to go to the grocery store? Probably. But having my groceries delivered saves me time and, although it costs a little more, it helps keep someone in my area employed when jobs have become harder to come by.

Is there a risk with going out for exercise? Maybe, but it's a tiny risk and it the risk is outweighed by the benefit of improving my health through exercise.

Would I let my daughter go to a volleyball tournament right now? Definitely not - at least, not yet. The risk of catching it is much higher indoors with people tightly packed together, touching the same objects and breathing heavily. You may think that catching this is no big deal but the fact is you don't know what the long term implications because no one has had it long term. There was long term damage from SARS which is similar to this and some COVID survivors definitely have some long term damage so it's not an insignificant risk. Keeping my daughter away from elevated risks for a few more months isn't big deal compared to the potential damage.

I don't agree with the characterization of the response as hysteria. Health experts told us what they didn't know and that there were huge risks associated with COVID-19. They weren't wrong. Soon,100,000 Americans will have died from it in just a couple of months. As we learn more, some of the risks will go away. But, right now ,we don't know which ones will go away and which ones won't. Probably, a lot of concerns will go away. But I want to learn as much as possible and understand what we really know vs. what is just posturing about what we probably know so I can weigh the risks of what I expose my children to.

The thing that would make me feel safe is if I saw a vast majority of people taking it seriously and taking appropriate actions. The fact that there are so many people on this board and elsewhere who think it's totally blown out of proportion and think that wearing a mask is ridiculous makes me weigh the risk a lot heavier than I otherwise would.
Reply Quote
8
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sisyphus • 11:53a, 5/20/20
AG
Saying there are "huge risks" associated with the virus is a blanket statement that is flat out false for the majority of the population. It's a huge risk for nursing homes, but has been shown to be a negligible risk for young people, especially young healthy people.
Reply Quote
3
Proposition Joe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 4:24p, 5/20/20
GAC06 said:
Saying there are "huge risks" associated with the virus is a blanket statement that is flat out false for the majority of the population. It's a huge risk for nursing homes, but has been shown to be a negligible risk for young people, especially young healthy people.

Please don't shout people down because you don't agree with their points. Either counter them or ignore them.

This is a relatively new virus that has killed 300k worldwide that we're finding out more and more about each day, and one that we still don't know the long-term impacts of.

We get by your post history that you are going to go into any corona-related thread and make some post downplaying it's severity. That's fine on the other forums, it's even fine in here as long as back it up with support.

But since you have zero idea what the long-term impacts of this virus are, telling someone else they can't say there's a "huge risk" is simply shouting down something you don't want people to hear.
Reply Quote
5
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Proposition Joe • 4:43p, 5/20/20
AG
I'm not shouting anyone down. There's tons of data at this point showing that there's very very little risk to young people, and especially young healthy people. That's a fact. If something like 0.01% is someone's threshold for too much risk, that's their decision to make, and that's fine with me.

Don't worry, it's likely my posts will be removed, speaking of shouting someone down.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Proposition Joe • 4:45p, 5/20/20
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Proposition Joe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:15p, 5/20/20
I don't disagree that with the numbers we are starting to see the risk level for the younger generation is not worth shutting down the economy for.

But we've all seen the reports change daily -- if there's one thing for certain about all of this is that the data and reports leave a lot to be desired, and tend to counter each other pretty regularly. That, and the poster mentioned "long term effects", which none of you (or myself) can claim to know the risk.

I have no problem with those saying "based on the #'s and what it is doing to our economy, young people should be out and about"... hell I don't even mind people making a case for "open up 100%!", as everyone is entitled to their opinion on how things should go.

But don't tell a poster that says there was a huge risk involved with the virus that the statement is flat out false -- because you have zero idea what the long-term effects are. And if your posts are removed it should probably tell you something?
Reply Quote
2 edits
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Proposition Joe • 5:20p, 5/20/20
AG
For much of the population it is flat out false based on the data we have. Is it true that we don't know what long term effects may exist? Yes. Saying we don't know is completely different from saying it's a "huge risk."

Can you show me any factual evidence that there's a huge risk of long term effects for anyone other than the worst cases?
Reply Quote
1
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Detmersdislocatedshoulder • 5:36p, 5/20/20
Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:
Sisyphus said:
NorthFultonAg07 said:
Who cares anymore. Open back up! I could die sitting in my chair or i can die living life!
Edit to ask what the point of you starting a thread on this when there are already threads on this?

I care. I agree that states can and should start to open up (as most are) but I also want to learn as much as I can in make informed decisions as to what activities my children and I should do.

BTW, the study is good news for opening up more. Early on, we didn't know if this virus could be worse for you on reinfection the way that Dengue Fever is. A 12 person study isn't a good set of data to make broad characterizations but it's encouraging that the severity of symptoms didn't get worse a second time.


My question to you is what will make you feel safe to venture out? More and more info is coming in that completely discounts much of the original hysteria. So outside of a cure or vaccine what would make you feel safe?
We have been eating out and living life normally for 3 almost 4 weeks.
Reply Quote
1
Proposition Joe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 5:48p, 5/20/20
The poster said he didn't believe the response the nation had to it was "hysteria" and explained that at the time health experts were not really sure and that there were huge risks involved, and that he sees his decisions as balancing risk against reward.

You immediately say he is making false statements by saying that there ARE huge risks. Except he didn't actually say that, he said at the time our nation's reaction was because there were huge risks -- and I'd say that is pretty factual otherwise we wouldn't have closed down the country. Now, did some of those risks end up being lower than we initially thought? Yes. That doesn't make his statement false.

Part of the problem is in your quest to monitor the forum developed to discussing the disease and question why anyone is actually worried about the disease, you are quick to shout down a post as false or fear-mongering before you actually bother to read the post.

The thing is I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion on the virus, but it's like going to the TexAgs football forum and replying to every thread that A&M is unlikely to win the national title... What exactly are you hoping to accomplish?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Proposition Joe • 5:53p, 5/20/20
AG
Once again I'm not shouting anyone down so I'm not sure why you're repeating that over and over. Second, the facts are on my side. There isn't much risk for most of us. Sorry that basic fact gets you riled up.

And I guess I shouldn't expect any kind of facts showing huge risk of long term effects?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Proposition Joe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 6:13p, 5/20/20
Keep on fighting the good fight!
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.