Members Riobard Posted September 4, 2020 Members Posted September 4, 2020 https://apple.news/AQ4dRzrq2RnuujpnlSPSmIw tassojunior 1 Quote
Members Riobard Posted September 4, 2020 Author Members Posted September 4, 2020 I wonder if this finding supports a thought I posted a while back, related but different: swine animal models in virologic research show that they can be immune yet re-exposed to a virus and potentially shed it to others in a contagious manner. Deliberative research of this nature is prohibited for humans. tassojunior 1 Quote
Members tassojunior Posted September 4, 2020 Members Posted September 4, 2020 ""33 COVID-19 patients aged 22 or younger"" hmmm. that's children and adults. Very young children are usually very different from adults virus-wise and with Covid seem pretty immune. I never thought of them as little spreaders. Quote
Members unicorn Posted September 6, 2020 Members Posted September 6, 2020 On 9/4/2020 at 7:28 AM, Riobard said: https://apple.news/AQ4dRzrq2RnuujpnlSPSmIw Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? "It is not known if adults are as likely to carry the virus and the antibodies at the same time. Also not clear from the study is whether children who have developed antibodies are still able to pass the virus to others." Sorry, but the studies have been done by the South Korean CDC. Once people have antibodies, viral particles can still be detected for quite some time in the nasopharynx. But these particles are not contagious. Quote
Members Riobard Posted September 6, 2020 Author Members Posted September 6, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, unicorn said: Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? "It is not known if adults are as likely to carry the virus and the antibodies at the same time. Also not clear from the study is whether children who have developed antibodies are still able to pass the virus to others." Sorry, but the studies have been done by the South Korean CDC. Once people have antibodies, viral particles can still be detected for quite some time in the nasopharynx. But these particles are not contagious. I read the study itself. What do you mean by ‘the studies’ plural? Do you mean ‘there is SK research ...’? This study was National Children’s Hospital, DC and I believe GWUni. Naturally a caveat for ‘possible’ equates to ‘not clear‘, more research needed, etc. Are you so rigid that a bit of post heading hyperbole is forbidden? The article was linked and the limitations are delineated clearly, as you quoted. If you think the authors overstretched their bounds and that it is incontrovertible that residual viral particles are inactive, submit a critique to the journal. Does not the long-ish duration of CoV seropositivity combined with the characteristic lagging and often (less characteristically) poor development of neutralizing antibodies suggest at all at all at all a unique variation for this age group that contradicts the notion of equivalent transmission vector potential status compared to older hosts? —— Your issue, though, accompanied by shaming filibustering-grade tone may be more related to me. Let it go. Such a snore, such a good-mood flaccidizer. Edited September 6, 2020 by Riobard Quote
Members Riobard Posted September 6, 2020 Author Members Posted September 6, 2020 (edited) I believe line 11 in the study Results should read ‘antibody testing’ as they unintentionally missed bridging between viral and immunity signifiers. I do not think the researchers’ intent was to come across as obnoxious or insinuate a degree of superiority over who they might perceive to be lesser life forms. Edited September 6, 2020 by Riobard Quote
