Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
COVID the real numbers? Not all doom and gloom.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="urbanracer" data-source="post: 2304402" data-attributes="member: 140811"><p>For me the raw data does not tell the whole story. Whilst I accept the numbers paint an interesting picture and I am curious about what's going on, I am mindful of what's being written in several places about <em>viral load.</em></p><p></p><p>If you have received a low viral load there seems to be an increased chance that your immune system can cope with the infection without intervention. But of course you would test positive if subjected to a swab test.</p><p></p><p>This muddies the waters because you may (have a low viral load and may) be symptomless and would not represent a case, or you may be symptomless with a high viral load if you're naturally somehow immune.</p><p></p><p>If the concept of viral load being important is accepted then questions follow.</p><p></p><p>Was lockdown successful in containing the spread of the virus, such that the number (and severity) of new infections reduced, - I think it was.</p><p></p><p>As we start moving around, are the current measures of face masks, social distancing and improved hygiene working to reduce the number of infections where a high viral load is transmitted? It can probably be argued that they are.</p><p></p><p>In short, is one symptomless ( with a low viral load) because of the measures that have been put in place or in spite of them? That is a question we still don't know the answer to and it does not seem to be addressed by the article.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="urbanracer, post: 2304402, member: 140811"] For me the raw data does not tell the whole story. Whilst I accept the numbers paint an interesting picture and I am curious about what's going on, I am mindful of what's being written in several places about [I]viral load.[/I] If you have received a low viral load there seems to be an increased chance that your immune system can cope with the infection without intervention. But of course you would test positive if subjected to a swab test. This muddies the waters because you may (have a low viral load and may) be symptomless and would not represent a case, or you may be symptomless with a high viral load if you're naturally somehow immune. If the concept of viral load being important is accepted then questions follow. Was lockdown successful in containing the spread of the virus, such that the number (and severity) of new infections reduced, - I think it was. As we start moving around, are the current measures of face masks, social distancing and improved hygiene working to reduce the number of infections where a high viral load is transmitted? It can probably be argued that they are. In short, is one symptomless ( with a low viral load) because of the measures that have been put in place or in spite of them? That is a question we still don't know the answer to and it does not seem to be addressed by the article. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
COVID the real numbers? Not all doom and gloom.
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…