Coronavirus affects other body systems

[Roger Feeley]

I recall some virus related thread where a comment was made about patients seeming to recover from lung problems only to succumb to heart problems. The poster was asked for a citation and couldn’t find one. The poster apologized and retracted the comment showing a level of integrity far in excess of normal online behavior.

i saw this this morning. If you scroll down you will see exactly what the poster saw. So, to who ever posted and then retracted, you aren’t crazy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-destroys-lungs-but-doctors-are-finding-its-damage-in-kidneys-hearts-and-elsewhere/2020/04/14/7ff71ee0-7db1-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html

[Ken Fitzgerald]

This virus is so new, spreads so rapidly and the immediate battle is to save lives but little is known about the virus.

Personally, I think it's the asymptomatic carriers, those who are infected without symptoms, that we need to worry about. Those people can unknowingly be among the general public spreading the disease.

There is real reason to push for two types of testing. One test to determine who currently has the disease so they can be quarantined to prevent the spread. The 2nd test is needed to determine who has had the disease and developed an antibody. The 2nd group could safely go back to work without worry of catching it or generally speaking, without spreading it other than being secondary carriers.

A lot of emphasis is being placed on major population centers, their current danger and engagement. But think about this. The county where I live has an estimated population in 2016 IIRC of 40,369. So far the health district has confirmed 20 cases of Corvid-19 and as of 7:00 p.m. last night, 10 of those had died. That's 50% death rate in a rather remote, sparsely populated area. They also stated last night that all of the deaths occurred in people over the age of 70 with 8 of the 10 deaths happening to people over the age of 90. Lewiston is approximately 2,000' lower in elevation than the surrounding area and is often referred to as "The Banana Belt" due to our milder weather than the surrounding area. A lot of ranchers/farmers retire here. A lot of people from Spokane, WA, for instance, visit here in the winter to play golf when their golf courses are under snow. We have 3 hospitals within a 1 1/2 air mile radius of each other, plenty of specialty clinics, surgery centers, pain clinics, etc. so I don't think lack of medical services is a problem. I do think that age related underlying conditions can be a factor.

This is serious even in a remote area.

[Roger Feeley]

I see these priorities
1. Determine with certainty whether surviving the virus confers immunity and for how long. This is a big one to me.
2. Antibody testing. If the virus does make one immune, a person carrying antibodies can return to their old filthy habits. It’s widely felt that many more people have had the virus than the numbers suggest.
3. Early tracking and tracing when there is an outbreak

with regard to #4, I found an app offered by MIT. oddly named “Private Kit”, all it does is log your latitude and longitude with a time stamp every five minutes. Nothing is stored outside of your phone unless you choose to share it. Sharing is manual. You create a CSV file and email it. The idea is if I get sick, they are going to interview me to see where I’ve been over some number of days. With this app, I can just create a file and hand it over. Absent a better idea, I highly recommend this app. In my view, it is accurate enough while respecting your privacy.

But even when we have the all-clear, I just don’t know how I will feel about going to a sporting event, movie or restaurant.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Roger,

I completely agree with your first 3 priorities.

The 4th one presents a problem as I don't carry my cell phone. In fact, it resides in a drawer, doesn't come out for months to be used to text someone. I don't carry it when I am in town but do when I am traveling out of town. Regardless, there are some who will say you have to trust that the information isn't being shared without your knowledge. But, in fact, your idea does hold sand. How many people who are deathly ill want or are able to remember dates, times, locations, number of persons they met and name those individuals? As I said, I don't carry my cell phone and unlike my wife I don't wear or use Fitbit.

[Roger Feeley]

Roger,

I completely agree with your first 3 priorities.

The 4th one presents a problem as I don't carry my cell phone. In fact, it resides in a drawer, doesn't come out for months to be used to text someone. I don't carry it when I am in town but do when I am traveling out of town. Regardless, there are some who will say you have to trust that the information isn't being shared without your knowledge. But, in fact, your idea does hold sand. How many people who are deathly ill want or are able to remember dates, times, locations, number of persons they met and name those individuals? As I said, I don't carry my cell phone and unlike my wife I don't wear or use Fitbit.

yeah, I have a love-hate relationship with my smart phone. I’m going to go on record with a prediction that the powers that be are going to want real-time access to our location. The app I have is good for after the fact to reconstruct my travels but does no good In precisely finding others. It’s also not good for alerting other people. It can tell doctors that I was in my local CVS at a certain time but doesn’t tell them who else was there with any precision.

There is another app that logs all Bluetooth connections. The theory is that if you are close enough to connect to my phone, you are close enough to infect me. That starts to get into murky ethical waters. Every bluetooth chip has a unique MAC address. Your phone would pick up my phone and my phone would pick up your phone. If I’m infected, it would be a snap to trace everyone I’ve connected with and perhaps everyone they’ve connected with. But imagine the potential for abuse!

maybe I should add a 5th priority
5. Re-establish the Office for Technology Assessment that closed down a long time ago. This is a non-partisan group that helps pilot congress through issues just like this.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I am listening to a discussion and I stand corrected. Two different doctors pointed out that even if you test positive with antibodies indicating you have survived the disease, it's no guarantee you won't be reinfected. They just don't know.

[Roger Feeley]

I am listening to a discussion and I stand corrected. Two different doctors pointed out that even if you test positive with antibodies indicating you have survived the disease, it's no guarantee you won't be reinfected. They just don't know.

once we get a reliable antibody test, I can think of three subgroups that should be tested right away and often.
- frontline healthcare workers
- prisoners
- military although I haven’t heard about many outbreak other than the one carrier.
all three have the virtue of being available for subsequent testing after infection and survival.

[Ken Barney]

I'm curious how many of the patients succumbing to heart-related problems received "hydroxychloroquine" as part of their treatment for the virus? Heart-related problems are several of the most common side effects of hydroxychloroquine.

[Edwin Santos]

Does anyone know if there is clarity at this point on why some people react so adversely to Covid-19 and others do not?

At one point the reporting was that elderly people and/or those with underlying health conditions were in the adverse category and everyone else is not.
Now we know that younger people are not exempt, and in some extreme outlier cases, even children.

But still, my question is why you can have two people of apparently similar health and one is basically asymptomatic, and the other becomes very very sick.
Look at two TV anchors, Chris Cuomo and George Stephanopoulos. Both have announced being Covid-19 positive. Both claim to be healthy, fit guys, and certainly look the part. Yet Cuomo has reported being very sick, down with continuous fever, chills, aches, sicker than he's ever been. Stephanopoulos says he is totally asymptomatic and actually "feels great". And to add to it, Stephanopoulos is 10 years older than Cuomo.

I'm trying to make sense of it. I'm wondering if it could be possible that there are now multiple strains originating from the one virus, or perhaps the virus is mutating as it spreads, becoming less or more lethal. In other words, maybe one person can contract a severe version of Covid-19 and another might only contract the milder version. This is only my speculation, but different strains would explain why people of similar health profiles would have such different experiences.

I'd welcome any insight.
Edwin

[Mike Henderson]

Virus mutate quickly and often. In past outbreaks of viral illness, people who had the serious version generally stayed home while those with the milder version went out and infected others. So eventually, the milder version became predominate and that version usually provided immunity to the more serious version.

This one may be doing the same thing. But I also expect that different people react differently to the exact same virus.

Mike

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Virus mutate quickly and often. In past outbreaks of viral illness, people who had the serious version generally stayed home while those with the milder version went out and infected others. So eventually, the milder version became predominate and that version usually provided immunity to the more serious version.

This one may be doing the same thing. But I also expect that different people react differently to the exact same virus.

Mike

Mike, I agree with different people reacting differently to the same virus.

[Roger Feeley]

Virus mutate quickly and often. In past outbreaks of viral illness, people who had the serious version generally stayed home while those with the milder version went out and infected others. So eventually, the milder version became predominate and that version usually provided immunity to the more serious version.

This one may be doing the same thing. But I also expect that different people react differently to the exact same virus.

Mike

Mike,
that’s the best explanation I’ve seen of what others have said about viruses being less severe over time. It’s basically survival of the least fit.

[Steve Demuth]

Does anyone know if there is clarity at this point on why some people react so adversely to Covid-19 and others do not?

At one point the reporting was that elderly people and/or those with underlying health conditions were in the adverse category and everyone else is not.
Now we know that younger people are not exempt, and in some extreme outlier cases, even children.

But still, my question is why you can have two people of apparently similar health and one is basically asymptomatic, and the other becomes very very sick.
Look at two TV anchors, Chris Cuomo and George Stephanopoulos. Both have announced being Covid-19 positive. Both claim to be healthy, fit guys, and certainly look the part. Yet Cuomo has reported being very sick, down with continuous fever, chills, aches, sicker than he's ever been. Stephanopoulos says he is totally asymptomatic and actually "feels great". And to add to it, Stephanopoulos is 10 years older than Cuomo.

I'm trying to make sense of it. I'm wondering if it could be possible that there are now multiple strains originating from the one virus, or perhaps the virus is mutating as it spreads, becoming less or more lethal. In other words, maybe one person can contract a severe version of Covid-19 and another might only contract the milder version. This is only my speculation, but different strains would explain why people of similar health profiles would have such different experiences.

I'd welcome any insight.
Edwin

First, it is abundantly clear that age is a huge factor. It's true that the virus kills some young adults and some more middle-aged folks. But the likelihood of harm from SARS-CoV2 infection goes from near zero for children, to devastating 15% or more likelihood of death - for those 80+.

There is strong reason to believe that this is tied to differences as people age in how the ACE2 receptor on lung cells behaves. ACE2 (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) is the binding site for the SARS-CoV2 virus.

There is a strong suspicion that different variants of the ACE2 protein could thus make some people, at any age, significantly more susceptible. So a 30 year old who gets the devastating manifestation of Covid-19 might just have the bad luck of a mutated ACE2 gene.

Lots of research going on about this.

[Edwin Santos]

Virus mutate quickly and often. In past outbreaks of viral illness, people who had the serious version generally stayed home while those with the milder version went out and infected others. So eventually, the milder version became predominate and that version usually provided immunity to the more serious version.




First, it is abundantly clear that age is a huge factor. It's true that the virus kills some young adults and some more middle-aged folks. But the likelihood of harm from SARS-CoV2 infection goes from near zero for children, to devastating 15% or more likelihood of death - for those 80+.

There is strong reason to believe that this is tied to differences as people age in how the ACE2 receptor on lung cells behaves. ACE2 (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) is the binding site for the SARS-CoV2 virus.

There is a strong suspicion that different variants of the ACE2 protein could thus make some people, at any age, significantly more susceptible. So a 30 year old who gets the devastating manifestation of Covid-19 might just have the bad luck of a mutated ACE2 gene.

Lots of research going on about this.

Natural selection mutating virus strains vs. genetic disposition lottery. Two different but very interesting theses. Perhaps the answer is a combination of both, or something entirely different. It will be very interesting to see what the scientific community concludes. Thanks for the answers,

[Bill Dufour]

I thought it has to do with the initial infection dose. If they get one spore of virus that makes it inside and starts to multiply they will have several days of low grade infection allowing antibodies to be created.
If they get sneezed on and get 1000's of spores in their lungs in one shot they are already several days ahead of the single virus person and have a lot less time before the virus has multiplied enough times to become a problem.
I have read 1-6 hours is the time needed for one virus to double. I assume it is a simple log curve upward until antibodies flatten the curve.
Bil lD.

https://www.livescience.com/8038-viruses-spread-fast-cell-surfing.html

[Rod Sheridan]

One other issue with Covid-19 is kidney damage or failure.

Many hospitalized patients have required dialysis, leading to a shortable of dialysis consumables.....Rod

[Andrew Seemann]

About 10 years ago, the wife developed an arrhythmia of the heart, which baffled the doctors to no end. According to them, she was too young for heart disease or any of the other standard heart ailments. They fixed it with an ablation (I think that is what they called it), but they never figured out what was the cause. Their best guess was that a virus attacked her heart. Since it started around the time of H1N1, that was probably, although not certainly, the most likely source.

She is also one of those people who react differently than most people to medication, and seems to have more sensitivity to getting oddball ailments. In high school, she was one of 6 people who got the measles in her state that year, despite having been vaccinated against it.

Some people just have whatever the right (or wrong) combinations of whatever factors which make them more susceptible to things. Needless to say, she has barely left the house in the last month.

[Bill Dufour]

Supposed to be that kids in-vireo at the time of the Spanish flu are more likely to die of heart attacks. then those with birthdays a few years either way.
Thalidomide affected the grand daughters of pregnant women who had daughters. Female humans are born with all their eggs at birth.
Bil lD

[Jim Becker]

The latest "feature" that some folks are getting from Covid-19 are skin issues. For some, it affects the toes and fingers; others have rashes and other things. This may explain the skin problems I've been suddenly been having after potentially having the virus. A full "moult" of my skin just like Sammula our Cockatiel and my hands are a total mess...originally thought to be a reaction to an antibiotic, but who knows?

[Bill Dufour]

The latest "feature" that some folks are getting from Covid-19 are skin issues. For some, it affects the toes and fingers; others have rashes and other things. This may explain the skin problems I've been suddenly been having after potentially having the virus. A full "moult" of my skin just like Sammula our Cockatiel and my hands are a total mess...originally thought to be a reaction to an antibiotic, but who knows?
I wonder if this is from too much hand sanitizer and soap?
Bil lD.

[Jim Becker]

I wonder if this is from too much hand sanitizer and soap?
Bil lD.
No, it's not, especially since this particular presentation isn't limited to the hands. It's likely from how different people have receptors for the virus in various ways beyond the most serious ones in lung tissue. Apparently, there is now concern for folks who are more to the obese side of things because receptors for the virus apparently are abundant in body fats. Viruses "plug in" to our systems via receptors. When we develop antibodies after being infected and recover, those antibodies work to keep the receptors from accepting the virus. There is so much we do not know about "Covid-19" at this point, it's scary.

[Edwin Santos]

No, it's not, especially since this particular presentation isn't limited to the hands. It's likely from how different people have receptors for the virus in various ways beyond the most serious ones in lung tissue. Apparently, there is now concern for folks who are more to the obese side of things because receptors for the virus apparently are abundant in body fats. There is so much we do not know about this virus at this point.

That's interesting. There's a doctor that appears on TV interviews sometimes named Michael Osterholm. He's a little bit of a fatalist, often predicting the worst for this pandemic, but one of the things he was saying early on is that the US is uniquely vulnerable to this virus because of the high rate of obesity (something like 50%?) which is a complicating factor for COVID-19. I'm speculating here, but it could mean those people whose BMI puts them in the obese category, are in the vulnerable class just like the elderly. Since obesity rates are much lower in Asian countries, it could explain a lower infection and death rate there.

I think it's universally accepted that obesity is an added handicap on the lungs. I heard this is why they are having some success rolling obese patients on to their stomachs for respiratory relief, because it gets the blanket of weight under them as opposed to laying on top of their lungs and organs.

[Edwin Santos]

This might be interesting to some. Perhaps the question is not what other body systems COVID affects, but rather, what underlying health conditions cause a COVID infection to be more severe.

431668

Note: these stats are only for U.S. hospitalizations and the source of info cited is CDC.

I thought this chart was interesting in light of my prior comment citing Dr. Osterholm who forecasted the US to be especially vulnerable to COVID due to our high rate of obesity (I think the US leads the world in obesity if you except out the polynesian islands and Kuwait)

[Curt Harms]

I got an email from LabCorp, I think it was. They're now offering Covid antibody testing. It requires a prescription.

[Jim Becker]

I got an email from LabCorp, I think it was. They're now offering Covid antibody testing. It requires a prescription.

Quest announced theirs, but this is good news if LabCorp also has it since that's who I have to use.

[Robert Engel]

Personally, I think it's the asymptomatic carriers, those who are infected without symptoms, that we need to worry about. Those people can unknowingly be among the general public spreading the disease.
A pandemic does not die out by "lockdowns" or "sheltering in place", but only through population (herd) immunity. IOW, when enough people are infected and develop immunity the virus has no where to go. This is thought to be 60-70%. In the US this means 250M people need to be infected and recover. The actions we have taken, while maybe sparing the health system, will actually prolong the pandemic because there will be millions of people who have not been exposed. You'll be hearing about COVID deaths and hotspots for months to come.

Epidemiology founded in science knows this but the reality is society & leaders cannot tolerate a huge death spike. But Sweden is an example to the world. Deaths quickly spiked, but they are rapidly developing herd immunity and their people will be better off than much of the world.

80% asymptomatic or slight illness. We know who the 20% vulnerable population is. They elder care facilities were not properly protected and account for at least 20% of deaths.

Contrary to reports focusing on "confirmed cases" and "deaths", think about this: 1.4M hospitalizations for non-COVID pneumonia, >45K deaths (2020 YTD CDC data).


10 of those had died. That's 50% death rate in a rather remote, sparsely populated area.

This is the case mortality rate for one hospital. Case mortality and mortality rate are two entirely different things.

Case mortality = # of deaths in hospitalized people. Meaning you were one of the small % who got sick enough to be hospitalized, and you died. The mortality rate for people on ventilators is close to 90%, but this has little relation to the true scenario.

So also misleading is the "confirmed cases". "Confirmed cases" are people who have symptoms and have been tested. If we assume even 50% of infected people never get tested, in number of actual COVID cases are in the millions.

In a few areas the studies have been done. The Stanford antibody study underestimated infection rate by 50-80X.

NYC is one certain case that so far has not been duplicated in any major city. Possibly because of population density, mass transit, delay in preventive measures, etc.

But so far in NYC antibody testing 50% are positive. There were 0 deaths under 18yrs of age. So if as many as 5 million people have been infected, with 12,000 deaths, the actual mortality rate for NYC would be 0.24%. If you go by confirmed case numbers (295K) it is about 6%.

I only point this out to show how far from reality many people's perspective of the pandemic.

[Jim Becker]

Robert, the problem here with turning things loose for "Herd Immunity" with this particular virus is that it has a considerably higher death rate than most other viruses that circulate, especially among compromised populations and...so far, there's been no good evidence that there is any actual immunity from re-infection, even when anti-bodies are present from a prior infection recovery. And it spreads incessantly because of up to 50% of folks with the virus are asymptomatic.

It's also not true that there are no deaths within young people. The rate is low for that demographic, but still present. And now we know that cats and dogs can be infected by it, too. It's truly an opportunistic virus that "knows" how to take advantage.

It's a complex situation for sure...Professor Dr. SWMBO is an epidemiologist and in her professional community there is great concern with what we don't know about this virus and may not know for years.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

A pandemic does not die out by "lockdowns" or "sheltering in place", but only through population (herd) immunity. IOW, when enough people are infected and develop immunity the virus has no where to go. This is thought to be 60-70%. In the US this means 250M people need to be infected and recover. The actions we have taken, while maybe sparing the health system, will actually prolong the pandemic because there will be millions of people who have not been exposed. You'll be hearing about COVID deaths and hotspots for months to come.

Epidemiology founded in science knows this but the reality is society & leaders cannot tolerate a huge death spike. But Sweden is an example to the world. Deaths quickly spiked, but they are rapidly developing herd immunity and their people will be better off than much of the world.

80% asymptomatic or slight illness. We know who the 20% vulnerable population is. They elder care facilities were not properly protected and account for at least 20% of deaths.

Contrary to reports focusing on "confirmed cases" and "deaths", think about this: 1.4M hospitalizations for non-COVID pneumonia, >45K deaths (2020 YTD CDC data).



This is the case mortality rate for one hospital. Case mortality and mortality rate are two entirely different things.

Case mortality = # of deaths in hospitalized people. Meaning you were one of the small % who got sick enough to be hospitalized, and you died. The mortality rate for people on ventilators is close to 90%, but this has little relation to the true scenario.

So also misleading is the "confirmed cases". "Confirmed cases" are people who have symptoms and have been tested. If we assume even 50% of infected people never get tested, in number of actual COVID cases are in the millions.

In a few areas the studies have been done. The Stanford antibody study underestimated infection rate by 50-80X.

NYC is one certain case that so far has not been duplicated in any major city. Possibly because of population density, mass transit, delay in preventive measures, etc.

But so far in NYC antibody testing 50% are positive. There were 0 deaths under 18yrs of age. So if as many as 5 million people have been infected, with 12,000 deaths, the actual mortality rate for NYC would be 0.24%. If you go by confirmed case numbers (295K) it is about 6%.

I only point this out to show how far from reality many people's perspective of the pandemic.

Robert,

I reread what I posted in this thread. I don't see any post where I hinted, implied or suggested that "lockdowns or shelter-in-place" stop a pandemic. In fact, in post #16 in this thread https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?282248-Does-Anyone-Know-Anybody-Who-Has-Had-the-Virus-Share-Your-Experiences&p=3014669&highlight=#post3014669 I stated that until a vaccine or therapeutic treatment is available I will continue to live cautiously. My wife and I are in our 70's and have reason to be cautious.

While you may want to view the shelter-in-place as prolonging the pandemic, I prefer to look at it as limiting the rate of transmission so the health system isn't totally overwhelmed to the point that unnecessary deaths occur.

The CDC may report there have been 45K pneumonia deaths to date in 2020, the same CDC was reporting 60,726 Covid-19 deaths earlier today with "social distancing" in place. I'd argue that it's the ease and speed at which this virus is transmitted that should worry a person.

Mortality rates vs case rates? Where would the bodies they found in the storage room in the retirement home in NJ fit in? They weren't in a hospital. It seems like word games to me. For the record, the county here is now reporting 59 confirmed Covid-19 cases resulting in 16 deaths so the rate of death is now down to 27%.

Most of the epidemiologists I have seen interviewed argue against developing herd immunity as being practiced by Sweden.

My reality is as I stated in the other thread, I am not afraid, or fearful but I am being cautious as I am in the age group that is being effected more. I will continue being cautious until there is a proven treatment or a proven vaccine widely available. That is my reality.

[Ron Citerone]

Robert,

I reread what I posted in this thread. I don't see any post where I hinted, implied or suggested that "lockdowns or shelter-in-place" stop a pandemic. In fact, in post #16 in this thread https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?282248-Does-Anyone-Know-Anybody-Who-Has-Had-the-Virus-Share-Your-Experiences&p=3014669&highlight=#post3014669 I stated that until a vaccine or therapeutic treatment is available I will continue to live cautiously. My wife and I are in our 70's and have reason to be cautious.

While you may want to view the shelter-in-place as prolonging the pandemic, I prefer to look at it as limiting the rate of transmission so the health system isn't totally overwhelmed to the point that unnecessary deaths occur.

The CDC may report there have been 45K pneumonia deaths to date in 2020, the same CDC was reporting 60,726 Covid-19 deaths earlier today. I'd argue that it's the ease and speed at which this virus is transmitted that should worry a person.

Mortality rates vs case rates? Where would the bodies they found in the storage room in the retirement home in NJ fit in? They weren't in a hospital. It seems like word games to me. For the record, the county here is now reporting 59 confirmed Covid-19 cases resulting in 16 deaths so the rate of death is now down to 27%.

Most of the epidemiologists I have seen interviewed argue against developing herd immunity as being practiced by Sweden.

My reality is as I stated in the other thread, I am not afraid, or fearful but I am being cautious as I am in the age group that is being effected more. I will continue being cautious until there is a proven treatment or a proven vaccine widely available. That is my reality.

Ken, I, like most people have been inundated with information about this. The thing that jumps out at me is there is so many thing that the science people don't know about this virus and that much clarity will eventually emerge. I am 62 and have had two minor heart attacks and 3 stents. My cardiologist said I need to be very careful here. I am not going to be one of the first to be testing the waters when every day the scientists will know more. I agree with you in that regard!

[Edwin Santos]

Epidemiology founded in science knows this but the reality is society & leaders cannot tolerate a huge death spike. But Sweden is an example to the world. Deaths quickly spiked, but they are rapidly developing herd immunity and their people will be better off than much of the world.



I wouldn't be too quick to hail Sweden as a model for the world. Right now, their anti-lockdown policy is looking like it is bearing a heavy cost in lives. Today's numbers:

Norway: 207 deaths
Denmark: 443 deaths
Finland: 206 deaths
Sweden: 2462 deaths

Your argument may be that in the end they'll be better off because herd immunity will be reached faster so the overall epidemic will be shorter, albeit more intense. We'll see how it all turns out, but at this moment in time, Sweden is looking like an example to the world of what not to do (as the UK concluded pretty quickly when they took a few initial steps down Sweden's path).

By the way, the whole subject of immunity is still unclear from what I can determine. It is not certain for how long a person may carry an antibody, if at all. I heard Dr. Birx make this very statement only a few days ago. If it turns out that post-infection immunity is non-existent, temporary, conditional or anything less than absolute, then Sweden's choice could be disastrous. And it would also mean COVID-19 will be with us until we have a vaccine.

[Curt Harms]

Are there any Covid19-like viral infections that do not confer at least some immunity post infection? There may be some but I can't think of them. On a somewhat related note I just received an email from LabCorp that they are now offering Covid19 antibody testing with a doctor's request.

[Ron Citerone]

Are there any Covid19-like viral infections that do not confer at least some immunity post infection? There may be some but I can't think of them. On a somewhat related note I just received an email from LabCorp that they are now offering Covid19 antibody testing with a doctor's request.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long-are-people-immune-to-covid-19/

Looks like usually some, but may be short lived. Earlier this year we had a stomach virus go through our family and I read at that point that immunity may only be good for a few months. I don't think that is a Covid-19 virus though.

[Jon Nuckles]

But Sweden is an example to the world. Deaths quickly spiked, but they are rapidly developing herd immunity and their people will be better off than much of the world.


Sweden's state epidemiologist, quoted in this (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/world/europe/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity.html)New York Times article, says that Sweden is not attempting to achieve herd immunity.

"While there was some early talk in Sweden of achieving “herd immunity,” which would mean infecting at least 60 percent of the population, Mr. Tegnell denies that was ever the government’s policy."

Instead, Sweden believes that its citizens' trust in their government and institutions make mandatory lockdowns unnecessary because the people will voluntarily follow guidelines promoted by doctors and scientists. Much of the article describes how this faith in voluntary compliance has been misplaced and people continue to gather and spread the virus. The elderly in particular have suffered devastating losses.

More importantly and as Jim Becker pointed out, herd immunity only works if surviving the virus confers some protection from catching it again. Basing a policy on developing herd immunity before determining if any immunity exists would be foolhardy.