I posted before that SALIVA is a better, more accu
Post# of 716
(Total Views: 229)
Posted On: 04/24/2020 11:27:45 AM
Re: someconcerns #127
I posted before that SALIVA is a better, more accurate indicator of whether someone has an active case of the virus.
We need an accurate test that is saliva-based, and then maybe they can make home kits that we can trust. In the meantime -- I've already heard about someone who must have had the virus, but tested negative. Then ended up in the hospital, tested positive.
I think that SOME of these stories of people testing negative and then positive may not be a resurgence of the virus -- they just had a false negative. There do seem to be too many of these stories for the "resurgence" or "reinfection" theories to be untrue -- but I think that the testing is so poor that we really don't have actual facts at this point, about how widespread the virus is, or if the virus genuinely leaves the body.
The nightmare scenario is if this is like HIV -- virus lurks inside forever, occasionally resurfacing.
We need an accurate test that is saliva-based, and then maybe they can make home kits that we can trust. In the meantime -- I've already heard about someone who must have had the virus, but tested negative. Then ended up in the hospital, tested positive.
I think that SOME of these stories of people testing negative and then positive may not be a resurgence of the virus -- they just had a false negative. There do seem to be too many of these stories for the "resurgence" or "reinfection" theories to be untrue -- but I think that the testing is so poor that we really don't have actual facts at this point, about how widespread the virus is, or if the virus genuinely leaves the body.
The nightmare scenario is if this is like HIV -- virus lurks inside forever, occasionally resurfacing.
(1)
(0)