OT: Discussion about COVID 19 if you have had it or think you might have it

Thinking of Snoredog (RIP) and his tagline "Someday science will catch up with what I'm saying." If I had betting money, I'd put it on science eventually finding this virus being responsible for earlier illnesses than now recognized. I'd be interested in knowing more about stats for pneumonia and respiratory illnesses from unknown pathogen in the prior weeks, and if there were more than expected (or not). Hope I remember to revisit this thread a few months from now and discuss then-current info. I'd be ok with being wrong. Just don't think we've had enough time to speak conclusively, just to the best of current knowledge.

I agree that "first known confirmed case(s)" recognized by scientific medical testing is not the same as "first case(s)." There is still more unknown than is known at this point, as indicated by the implications of the recent antibody testing in LA County.

CNBC: Coronavirus antibody testing shows LA County outbreak is up to 55 times bigger than reported cases.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronav ... cases.html

And Pugsy's question included "think you might have had it."

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:44 am

I agree that "first known confirmed case(s)" recognized by scientific medical testing is not the same as "first case(s)." There is still more unknown than is known at this point, as indicated by the implications of the recent antibody testing in LA County.

CNBC: Coronavirus antibody testing shows LA County outbreak is up to 55 times bigger than reported cases.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronav ... cases.html

And Pugsy's question included "think you might have had it."

Not to be a "stickler".

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/21/us ... -reported/

The results of the USC-LA study have yet to be peer-reviewed

jimbud wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:13 am

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:44 am

I agree that "first known confirmed case(s)" recognized by scientific medical testing is not the same as "first case(s)." There is still more unknown than is known at this point, as indicated by the implications of the recent antibody testing in LA County.

CNBC: Coronavirus antibody testing shows LA County outbreak is up to 55 times bigger than reported cases.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronav ... cases.html

And Pugsy's question included "think you might have had it."

Not to be a "stickler".

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/21/us ... -reported/

The results of the USC-LA study have yet to be peer-reviewed

Precisely! Which proves my point even further as to how little is known.

jimbud wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:13 am

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:44 am

I agree that "first known confirmed case(s)" recognized by scientific medical testing is not the same as "first case(s)." There is still more unknown than is known at this point, as indicated by the implications of the recent antibody testing in LA County.

CNBC: Coronavirus antibody testing shows LA County outbreak is up to 55 times bigger than reported cases.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronav ... cases.html

And Pugsy's question included "think you might have had it."

Not to be a "stickler".

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/21/us ... -reported/

The results of the USC-LA study have yet to be peer-reviewed

Thank you, but I prefer to get my medical information from non-politlically motivated websites.

palerider wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:28 pm

non-politlically motivated websites.

Good point, both for his source and mine. (I grabbed from what was convenient at the top of my feed.) But still, my first smart-mouthed thought after your post was, "Non-politically motivated website? Does such a beast even exist anymore?!

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:01 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:28 pm

non-politlically motivated websites.

Good point, both for his source and mine. (I grabbed from what was convenient at the top of my feed.) But still, my first smart-mouthed thought after your post was, "Non-politically motivated website? Does such a beast even exist anymore?!

I like Medscape.

It looks like here, you only need symptoms to be tested now--just get doctor OK.
No symptoms, but a couple weeks ago, my blood sugar trended 50-70 points higher than usual
for about 3 days. Blood sugar increases are noted as a symptom, but not enough for testing.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 1:01 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:28 pm

non-politlically motivated websites.

Good point, both for his source and mine. (I grabbed from what was convenient at the top of my feed.) But still, my first smart-mouthed thought after your post was, "Non-politically motivated website? Does such a beast even exist anymore?!

IMO, no. It all suffers from confirmation bias including the scientific community.

The medical examiner in Santa Clara County south of San Francisco is now saying a death of someone who died at home on February 6th was due to Covid-19. They had not traveled nor had an identifiable point of contact. Haven't read yet the history of their illness. Would be interesting to know how long they had been sick. It is quite possible they caught the virus in late January, in which case the person they caught it from COULD have had it a week or two. That's getting early enough in the month to make December not seem such an impossibility. It was Feb 3rd that my family traveled through LAX in Los Angeles and over the next 2 weeks we were dropping like flies. That medical examiner is looking at more cases. Time will tell. I remember hearing that this year's flu season was real bad with a strain that wasn't in the vaccine. Can't help but wonder.

Tainted tests???

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... -disaster/

Not the only source.

Just google - tainted covid tests

JPB

Most of the "experts" get behind a mike, and all they can do is blow smoke out of you-know-where.
Too many imposters--and they KNOW it--and so do we!

As of now, France has identified a pneumonia patient from late December whose tests on retained specimens confirmed he was a Covid-19 patient.

kteague wrote: ↑

Tue May 05, 2020 9:25 am

As of now, France has identified a pneumonia patient from late December whose tests on retained specimens confirmed he was a Covid-19 patient.

I think, as more testing is completed, that we're going to find that this has been around longer and in many more people than previously thought.

Who knows--WE may have infected the Chinese!