Viral load and coronavirus symptoms

[crazydiamond222]

There is a lot in the news about how viral load makes a big difference the the severity of coronavirus. For example a young healthy medic who is exposed to a high viral load from contact with lots of infected patients is as likely to get seriouly unwell as an older person who only gets exposed to a low dose from lower contact.

I am therefore wondering whether if for example you don't wash your groceries and get exposed to a low viral load this could be a good thing in boosting immunity amongst the young heathy population until a vaccine is available?

Given that the government expects most people to get it anyway is it not better to contract a low dose from post or other surfaces when you are self isolating anyway than a high dose from an infected person when you go back to work?

Please feel free to correct me though if you think this is a stupid idea!

Also if anyone knows of any research on this I would be interested to read it.

I have been wondering this too.

Bumping, anyone have any insight?

I was thinking the same

I have found it really useful to read about VL. It makes a lot of sense to me and will be useful in future too (I get paranoid about sick bugs as I’m emetophobic)

You can’t possibly sterilise everything anyway. I think it’s best to just keep washing hands/showering to remove as much as possible.

I’m pretty sure we have had it already - and the VL info makes sense there too as the severity was worse as it progressed through the family. But we obviously have no way of knowing for sure, so we are carrying on as if we haven’t - sensible hygiene but not trying to create an unattainable level of sterilisation!

I do wonder if this is why imperial want social distancing and not lock down, and feel that the former is Better for us.

On saying that I think they don’t know enough, because it seems some folks with minor exposure can be critical. The theory does make sense though.

I would add though that this starts to touch on herd immunity, where so many people have had it, it’s difficult for it to spread, because of the immunity in the population.

Social distancing may be the answer, as said, I can see the logic if the science on low viral load is correct, but I’m not sure they know that for sure, nor if low viral load is applicable in all cases to have minor symptoms , or just how many folks it won’t apply to and will get really ill

Yes I think having a tiny exposure doesn’t guarantee an easy ride because surely some people are more susceptible to suffering badly than others? Like with underlying conditions. I have some chronic illnesses and no matter what I seem to have worse versions of simple colds than the rest of my family. Whereas I’m not generally prone to sick bugs, and don’t tend to throw up even when others do (still get insanely anxious but that’s a MH thing) because I’m just built that way I guess - others throw up easily and get every D&V bug going.

I’ve been wondering how conditions like mine (ME and similar) affect our vulnerability to viral load

I do still think the current measures are necessary though. If the U.K. could be trusted to do social distancing properly then it wouldn’t be. But as it is there is probably a huge amount of contamination anyway - supermarkets especially! That won’t stop, especially as it seems many people still aren’t self isolating properly when they actually have symptoms (and I think there’s an unhelpfully huge emphasis on “the cough” but that’s a whole other thread). So I think this may be the best way because it is slowing it down but actually probably still transmitting at a minor level so many are still getting it in a safer milder way. Maybe?!

(I am rubbish at science BTW so this is based on my very basic understanding and could be entirely wrong)

I also think the current measures are absolutely necessary.

But it’s interesting how the chief scientific officer put the idea of herd immunity forward, and the who, rightly responded and said, it was a mistake as they didn’t know how the disease would evolve so was just too risky,

However now it looks like the science is saying he may have been right. Shield the vulnerable, let everyone else social distance, let people get very minorly infected, develop herd immunity that only needs to last long enough for the disease to not be able to transmit itself easily, reducing the cases massively , and allowing treatment for those who would need it. Thus effectively let us as humans beat it naturally. In the mean time you develop a treatment and a vaccine.

It seems that’s what effectively sage and imperial are advising the government, without saying the term herd immunity. They think a lock down, no immunity means we risk a massive resurgence when released, whereas social distancing will protect us better.

Too early to tell, and it’s a brave person who stands up and utters the words herd immunity again, but it does look like that’s where the science is going with this viral load work.

Thanks all for your replies. I think it will be interesting when we get the antibody tests to get an estimate of the proportion of the population who have some immunity. This could be a real game changer in the response and is hopefully not too far off.

@pegleg It is interesting what you say about the symptoms getting worse as it progressed through your family. I wonder what the evidence is on family members reinfecting each other.

I found this on viral load
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-questions-about-covid-19-and-viral-load/

In the first expert response it states
"there is no evidence for any suggestion that if everyone in a family is already sick they can they reinfect each other with more and more virus. In fact for other viruses once you are infected it’s quite hard to get infected with the same virus on top.”
There is no explanation why this is the case.

My wife is a nurse in a ward where one patient started (10th March) with a fever . It came and went three times, occasion cough, patient complained of feeling s**t. She and three other staff have come down with symptoms - all relatively mild, aches, pains, cough and fever in the other three staff members. My wife did not have a fever.
Our entire family isolated on the 10th so this is the only contact with COVID we have had. 5 days after my wife, I started with symptoms. Mild headache, occasional cough, fuzzy head, on and off for a few days. Very very mild. I'm 56 yo.
It struck me that the symptoms get milder as it went from one person to another, incidentally Daily Telegraph described another case of mild symptoms being passed to a partner and being even milder.

As far as the viral load theory goes, I tend to believe it, so if you are infected, isolate, take it easy and allow your immune system to recover.

"Too early to tell, and it’s a brave person who stands up and utters the words herd immunity again, but it does look like that’s where the science is going with this viral load work."

Unfortunately immunity may not last longer than 4 months.

The resurgence bit scares me. Not for me personally as I do think I’ve had it, but the thought of what will happen when the current rules are eased off and the nation potentially goes crazy with new found freedom and we get a sudden spike in deaths again.

I do still think the current measures are necessary though. If the U.K. could be trusted to do social distancing properly then it wouldn’t be.

I agree that the current measures are needed but nothing to do with people not being able to social distance.

It is necessary so the scientists can work out stuff like on this thread and how best to manage it once we start to get back to 'normal' whatever that will be. It is necessary so that in the short term our health service doesn't have 250k people all at once requiring ventilators. The problem is there is so little known about its behaviour because it's new/ determining how to best treat and control the spread is currently guesswork.

Blaming the current situation on the public is really unfair, particularly as the vast majority are following instructions. Some of our infrastructure (the tube) is almost designed for passing it on 🤦🏻‍♀️

Unfortunately immunity may not last longer than 4 months

Do you have a source for that, @PeterWeg?

Nobody knows: true fact

www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532754-600-can-you-catch-the-coronavirus-twice-we-dont-know-yet/

There are 2 strains of covid-19 so I wonder if the people in the article in the post above could have got reinfected by a different strain.

www.newscientist.com/article/2236544-coronavirus-are-there-two-strains-and-is-one-more-deadly/

You can catch chickenpox twice as well, but most people don't. The length of immunity was discussed at the briefing yesterday, the whole point is no one really knows. It might be that if you have had it before the risk of major symptoms goes down for example or you are unlikely to get the same strain again, but it's all guesswork the scientists are desperately trying to find answers to all of this.

All the evidence is that SARS-COV-2 is quite ordinary in lots of ways.
Most viruses: if we get them once, then we get lifelong or at least very long lasting immunity.
There is nothing special about SARS-COV-2 to suggest it's super unique and not ordinary in how we get immunity to it.
A tiny % of folk will be unlucky who struggle to get long-term immunity to germs. Any germ, most germs. That's ordinary fact, too.
Immunity may fade especially many decades later: also ordinary. Hence the shingles jab, for instance.

The main reason covid19 is important now is because it's new in humans, not super special compared to other viruses.

Viral load: the most important risk factor for bad outcomes from covid19 infection is something wrong with your heart, lungs, cardiovascular system or immune system. Low dose or high dose exposure isn't as important in determining how bad you get it as whether you have any or especially multiples of those underlying high risk conditions.

I must admit I look forward to the day when we can talk about other germs instead of the blasted SARS-COV-2.

Most viruses: if we get them once, then we get lifelong or at least very long lasting immunity.
Coronaviruses tend to give 3 months immunity.

@ peterweg. Immunity should hopefully be a bit longer than 3 months
www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/how-will-coronavirus-end/608719/
'When people are infected by the milder human coronaviruses that cause cold-like symptoms, they remain immune for less than a year. By contrast, the few who were infected by the original SARS virus, which was far more severe, stayed immune for much longer. Assuming that SARS-CoV-2 lies somewhere in the middle, people who recover from their encounters might be protected for a couple of years. To confirm that, scientists will need to develop accurate serological tests, which look for the antibodies that confer immunity. They’ll also need to confirm that such antibodies actually stop people from catching or spreading the virus. If so, immune citizens can return to work, care for the vulnerable, and anchor the economy during bouts of social distancing'

There is evidence that immunity to SARS lasts several years, @PeterWeg:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/

I have to say, as a nurse working on Covid wards, the theory of viral load scares the shit out of me...

That was a thread killer wasn't it