This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Scientists find you can’t get it twice?(23 Posts)
Just seen this shared on Facebook. Has it been all over the news and I’ve missed it? It would be amazing if true
There is so much crap being reported about this virus that I no longer read any of it. It's not worth the anxiety. I only care about what experienced epidemiologists (not Neil Ferguson) have to say on the matter.
This has been reported recently and isn't crap. But it's more that there was a suggestion that some people had been reinfected but that's now been proved to be down to 'false positive' tests. The PCR test for virus is a bit too sensitive and can detect non-viable leftover bits of virus basically.
So it is good news that there's no evidence anyone has had CV twice, but it's not actually proof that it's impossible to get it twice.
If there is immunity, we don't now how long it will last, at least not full immunity
A year or two - I've read several scientists think this likely - or just a few months
Is there any likelihood of a test that will show if a person has ever had the virus, not just recently?
* Is there any likelihood of a test that will show if a person has ever had the virus, not just recently?*
Antibody tests already exist, which is what's relevant.
That's what I meant - but I had an idea something had been reported lately that cast doubt on the idea that they are accurate.
Do they know if it can lie dormant? That wa one line of thought. Presumably they can't know yet?
Antibody tests I think they have found one that is more accurate than some which is why we weren't using them
But I'm sure they are going to be used soon, now we have some better ones available but I don't think they will be on sale to general public anytime soon.
Why aren't they using it?
Something very disturbing is going on.
Patients left to die at home or taken in only at a stage survival is less likely - no early treatment with, amongst other things, antivirals, nurses and doctors dying because of not enough PPE, non essential flights arriving daily at Heathrow with no checks or quarantine, accurate tests not being used.
It's almost as if the accusations levelled against our government of eugenics are true. I do hope it's negligence instead but either way it's shameful. Oh how the rest of the world must be viewing us.
ToffeeYoghurt they know it can't lie dormant in the same way that herpes viruses do, where you never get rid of them and they can flare up again years later - like how you can get shingles decades after having had chicken pox. For that to happen the viral genome needs to become part of your cells permanently, and to be able to do that the virus needs a LOT of specific genes that are well understood. This virus has already been shown not to have those genes - it just doesn't have a known mechanism by which it could stay in your body forever like herpes or HIV.
The worries about reactivation mostly came from the (very small number of) people in Japan and South Korea who tested positive a second time after apparently recovering. SK have now said that was due to 'dead' virus fragments picked up by the tests, which was always known to be a possibility with that type of test. There's just no evidence to suggest that the virus still exists in your body once your immune system seems to have cleared it.
Our government seems much more interested in rolling out this contact tracing app nationwide rather than going down the more sensible or logical route of antibody testing.
I am personally not interested in the app and suspect it won't work very well. I am interested in knowing who has had the disease via proper antibody testing.
That's definitely good news. Thank you psychomath
Pateras, I should think you are right about it being cost.
I just can't see the data gathered via the app being as accurate as that from antibody testing. My understanding of the app is that it is very dependent on people putting the correct information into their smartphones about whether they have or have recently had symptoms of Covid 19? Surely the majority of those inputting this information will be making an assumption of having or having had the virus, rather than having been tested properly and knowing for sure.
Also, whilst many of us do have smartphones, a significant number still don't.
I think testing properly is a much better way forward, but is the government now beginning to panic about it's finances and the damage to its magic money tree, so is trying to wriggle out of paying for tests? I think the app is potentially a false economy.
As to length if immunity, I think it was suggested that it might depend on how severe your infection was? And Professor Sarah Gilbert, of the Oxford vaccine, said 2 years or so immunity is not unusual.
I don't understand why people on this thread are suggesting the app is an alternative to antibody testing. Surely they serve entirely different purposes? There's a lot of value in knowing who might be immune to COVID, but that doesn't stop infectious people spreading it further - which the app could (it's a concept that's worked very well in other countries)
The government wanted to do antibody testing sooner, ordered a lot from China but those tests turned out not to be fit for purpose. I'm not sure exactly where things are at but it looks like Roche has produced a test which has been approved by the FDA now so there is hope of something reliable being available at some point. This sort of thing takes time to do right and at scale.
Once they have your data do you think they could use it for this:
Join the discussion
Please login first.