I thought this was an interesting theory

[PhyloeBedoe]

Sorry if already posted, but I haven’t seen it discussed here yet.

the gist of the theory is, the amount of virus one gets upon the initial infection may indicate how sick one gets. Get a tiny bit of the virus, and you only get a fever, or you’re asymptomatic. The immune system handles it fairly easily. Get a full blast dose of the virus and you may overwhelm your immune system so that you get really sick.

Masks are known to be pretty solid protection, but not 100% protection. So wearing one keeps most of the virus out, therefore giving you a “safer” dose, similar to how a vaccine works.

Anyway, the article explains the theory better than I do.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sorry if already posted, but I haven’t seen it discussed here yet.

the gist of the theory is, the amount of virus one gets upon the initial infection may indicate how sick one gets. Get a tiny bit of the virus, and you only get a fever, or you’re asymptomatic. The immune system handles it fairly easily. Get a full blast dose of the virus and you may overwhelm your immune system so that you get really sick.

Masks are known to be pretty solid protection, but not 100% protection. So wearing one keeps most of the virus out, therefore giving you a “safer” dose, similar to how a vaccine works.

Anyway, the article explains the theory better than I do.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

That’s true. I think that is called “viral load”. I had an M.D. explain that to me back in the spring. She talked about viral load in terms of length of time in the presence of an infected person. Passing on a sidewalk is not the same as spending time in the same room. She didn’t talk about masks, but I guess that makes sense in terms of the amount of virus transmitted in a given amount of time.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Sorry if already posted, but I haven’t seen it discussed here yet.

the gist of the theory is, the amount of virus one gets upon the initial infection may indicate how sick one gets. Get a tiny bit of the virus, and you only get a fever, or you’re asymptomatic. The immune system handles it fairly easily. Get a full blast dose of the virus and you may overwhelm your immune system so that you get really sick.

Masks are known to be pretty solid protection, but not 100% protection. So wearing one keeps most of the virus out, therefore giving you a “safer” dose, similar to how a vaccine works.

Anyway, the article explains the theory better than I do.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

I may need to get tested for antibodies after all

 

[twenty02]

Sorry if already posted, but I haven’t seen it discussed here yet.

the gist of the theory is, the amount of virus one gets upon the initial infection may indicate how sick one gets. Get a tiny bit of the virus, and you only get a fever, or you’re asymptomatic. The immune system handles it fairly easily. Get a full blast dose of the virus and you may overwhelm your immune system so that you get really sick.

Masks are known to be pretty solid protection, but not 100% protection. So wearing one keeps most of the virus out, therefore giving you a “safer” dose, similar to how a vaccine works.

Anyway, the article explains the theory better than I do.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This seems very plausible. And likely why you saw much higher death rates very early on before anyone took any mitigating precautions

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sorry if already posted, but I haven’t seen it discussed here yet.

the gist of the theory is, the amount of virus one gets upon the initial infection may indicate how sick one gets. Get a tiny bit of the virus, and you only get a fever, or you’re asymptomatic. The immune system handles it fairly easily. Get a full blast dose of the virus and you may overwhelm your immune system so that you get really sick.

Masks are known to be pretty solid protection, but not 100% protection. So wearing one keeps most of the virus out, therefore giving you a “safer” dose, similar to how a vaccine works.

Anyway, the article explains the theory better than I do.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

More about viral load and testing here.

The most popular and widely used tests uses something called amplification cycles to determine the presence of the virus. The more cycles, the less virus is needed for a positive result. Our standard is 40 cycles; which is higher than other countries. Many scientists are thinking that level is too high. The amount of virus needed to produce a positive result at 40 cycles could easily be clinically insignificant, meaning the virus does not make one sick nor is it contagious.

Scientists are now thinking that the test results should not be reported in a binary +/- fashion, but should be reported in a way to understand the severity of the infection. The stakes are high. A single, or few, positive tests will close down factories, schools, places of business not to mention bring about broad governmental public restrictions.

Our simplistic and risk adverse tendency towards public policy might be doing all of us irreparable damage.

 

[Noodle]

More about viral load and testing here.

The most popular and widely used tests uses something called amplification cycles to determine the presence of the virus. The more cycles, the less virus is needed for a positive result. Our standard is 40 cycles; which is higher than other countries. Many scientists are thinking that level is too high. The amount of virus needed to produce a positive result at 40 cycles could easily be clinically insignificant, meaning the virus does not make one sick nor is it contagious.

Scientists are now thinking that the test results should not be reported in a binary +/- fashion, but should be reported in a way to understand the severity of the infection. The stakes are high. A single, or few, positive tests will close down factories, schools, places of business not to mention bring about broad governmental public restrictions.

Our simplistic and risk adverse tendency towards public policy might be doing all of us irreparable damage.

While decreasing the no. of cycles for a "positive" makes sense, it could be a double-edged sword without rapid testing. The risk is that someone in the very early stages of infection would not test positive at, say, 30 cycles, but would at 40. If you declare that person negative based on a 30 cycle cutoff, they could be highly contagious in a day or two. Of course the answer is to keep 35 or 40 cycles as "maybe positive" and 30 cycles as the positive cut-off. Then you test the people who were "maybe positive" again 12-24 hours later. If they were in the early infection stage the first time, you will know based on the second test. Of course the problem is I don't think we're equipped for that amount of testing.
But I do agree that reducing the number of cycles for a "positive" could be a potential game-changer.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

While decreasing the no. of cycles for a "positive" makes sense, it could be a double-edged sword without rapid testing. The risk is that someone in the very early stages of infection would not test positive at, say, 30 cycles, but would at 40. If you declare that person negative based on a 30 cycle cutoff, they could be highly contagious in a day or two. Of course the answer is to keep 35 or 40 cycles as "maybe positive" and 30 cycles as the positive cut-off. Then you test the people who were "maybe positive" again 12-24 hours later. If they were in the early infection stage the first time, you will know based on the second test. Of course the problem is I don't think we're equipped for that amount of testing.
But I do agree that reducing the number of cycles for a "positive" could be a potential game-changer.

I briefly looked at the issue of whether the viral load changes as the virus takes hold in a given individual. There are a lot of variables. There is research suggesting that normal healthy people will fight off the infection without any, or only mild, symptoms with a small viral load. The presence of factors that would weaken the immune system is a different story. I think a fair conclusion is that the way we report testing isn't very meaningful for clinical purposes. The question is how do we intelligently use this information to determine public policy.