Continuation The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 2

[TellyKNeasuss]

I am confused about this article on a clinical trial of favipiravir in Japan.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2...g-covid-19.htm

In the study (which involved 88 patients), some of the patients (according to my understanding of the article) were given favipiravir beginning on the day they were tested positive and the remainder were given favipiravir starting on the 6th day after being tested positive. The article states that the trial failed to show that favipiravir was effective because while 2/3 of those given favipiravir beginning on the first day tested negative on the morning of the 6th day, more than half of those who weren't given it until the 6th day tested negative "by the same morning". Does this mean that they started giving favipiravir to people in the 2nd group even if they tested negative the morning that they were supposed to start using it? Or does it mean that the more than half the people in the delayed group were negative on the morning of the 6th day after they started taking favipiravir and not the 6th day after being diagnosed? And if it's the latter, why would it mean the favipiravir isn't effective just because people might recover after as many doses whether they start on it immediately or if they wait a few days?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by marting

When I click on the link you provided it says I don't have sufficient permission to view it. Strange.

Strange indeed. I just checked it myself and it works for me. It's in Community so you need be logged in to see it, but because you were able to post your message I assume you're logged in as well.

Maybe the mods have locked you out of community?

[Ulf Nereng]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

I am confused about this article on a clinical trial of favipiravir in Japan.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2...g-covid-19.htm

In the study (which involved 88 patients), some of the patients (according to my understanding of the article) were given favipiravir beginning on the day they were tested positive and the remainder were given favipiravir starting on the 6th day after being tested positive. The article states that the trial failed to show that favipiravir was effective because while 2/3 of those given favipiravir beginning on the first day tested negative on the morning of the 6th day, more than half of those who weren't given it until the 6th day tested negative "by the same morning". Does this mean that they started giving favipiravir to people in the 2nd group even if they tested negative the morning that they were supposed to start using it? Or does it mean that the more than half the people in the delayed group were negative on the morning of the 6th day after they started taking favipiravir and not the 6th day after being diagnosed? And if it's the latter, why would it mean the favipiravir isn't effective just because people might recover after as many doses whether they start on it immediately or if they wait a few days?

There is a difference between "failing to show that it is effective" and "showing that it is ineffective". The first group did have somewhat better results than the second, but with such small groups it wasn't enough to be called statistically significant.

They probably only gave the 2nd group the treatment to those who still tested positive. It would be better if we could see the actual research paper instead of a news story, but it may not have passed peer review yet.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

I am confused about this article on a clinical trial of favipiravir in Japan.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2...g-covid-19.htm

In the study (which involved 88 patients), some of the patients (according to my understanding of the article) were given favipiravir beginning on the day they were tested positive and the remainder were given favipiravir starting on the 6th day after being tested positive. The article states that the trial failed to show that favipiravir was effective because while 2/3 of those given favipiravir beginning on the first day tested negative on the morning of the 6th day, more than half of those who weren't given it until the 6th day tested negative "by the same morning". Does this mean that they started giving favipiravir to people in the 2nd group even if they tested negative the morning that they were supposed to start using it? Or does it mean that the more than half the people in the delayed group were negative on the morning of the 6th day after they started taking favipiravir and not the 6th day after being diagnosed? And if it's the latter, why would it mean the favipiravir isn't effective just because people might recover after as many doses whether they start on it immediately or if they wait a few days?

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

There is a difference between "failing to show that it is effective" and "showing that it is ineffective". The first group did have somewhat better results than the second, but with such small groups it wasn't enough to be called statistically significant.

They probably only gave the 2nd group the treatment to those who still tested positive. It would be better if we could see the actual research paper instead of a news story, but it may not have passed peer review yet.

88 patients is a rather small sample size.

Another story:
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles...0m/0fe/107000c

Quote:

Of those who had Avigan administered from the first day, 66.7 percent saw the virus disappear by the morning of the sixth day, while 56.1 percent of those with delayed doses showed similar signs of recovery by the same morning.

It took an average 2.1 days and 3.2 days for the first and second groups to have their fevers lower, respectively, the university said.

As Avigan can inhibit the replication of the virus in cells, experts say it may bring about improvements in patients but it cannot be administered to expectant mothers or women who are likely to become pregnant as it may cause birth defects.

I wonder how they define "women who are likely to become pregnant". All women of reproductive age or those actively trying to get pregnant?

Anyway, Ulf is right: The study doesn't mean that the drug doesn't work, only that the p value didn't reach the level of statistical significance. A larger study with more patients might have. Or the differences might only be due to random noise. But it sort of hints that there might be a small effect there, albeit the confidence level is less than 95%.

[Ulf Nereng]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I wonder how they define "women who are likely to become pregnant". All women of reproductive age or those actively trying to get pregnant?

Anyway, Ulf is right: The study doesn't mean that the drug doesn't work, only that the p value didn't reach the level of statistical significance. A larger study with more patients might have. Or the differences might only be due to random noise. But it sort of hints that there might be a small effect there, albeit the confidence level is less than 95%.

Surely they must mean the pretty ones!

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

Surely they must mean the pretty ones!

But seriously though, this is Japan. Birth control pills weren't legalized here until 1999, and they still aren't covered by insurance. I'm wondering what their criteria are for deciding whether a given woman is "likely to become pregnant". Marital status? Age? Something tells me they don't simply take a woman's word for it. But I could be wrong about that.

[rjh01]

Here is something really stupid. How would you like to go to a party with the INTENTION of catching the virus? Just to prove to yourself it is real. These parties exist. Here is one example
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...id-party-texas

People are dying due to this stupidity. Plus the virus is spreading even more.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is something really stupid. How would you like to go to a party with the INTENTION of catching the virus? Just to prove to yourself it is real. These parties exist. Here is one example
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...id-party-texas

People are dying due to this stupidity. Plus the virus is spreading even more.

Yes. Probably an anti-vaxxer. See also this tragic case. Read what this woman wrote on Facebook back in April.

I'm pretty sure that the people who would go to a COVID party are the same ones as those who would refuse to get vaccinated for the same disease (or others).

The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic (The Atlantic)

Quote:

Members of Heaven’s Gate, a religious cult, believed that as the Hale-Bopp comet passed by Earth in 1997, a spaceship would be traveling in its wake—ready to take true believers aboard. Several members of the group bought an expensive, high-powered telescope so that they might get a clearer view of the comet. They quickly brought it back and asked for a refund. When the manager asked why, they complained that the telescope was defective, that it didn’t show the spaceship following the comet. A short time later, believing that they would be rescued once they had shed their “earthly containers” (their bodies), all 39 members killed themselves.

Heaven’s Gate followers had a tragically misguided conviction, but it is an example, albeit extreme, of cognitive dissonance, the motivational mechanism that underlies the reluctance to admit mistakes or accept scientific findings—even when those findings can save our lives. This dynamic is playing out during the pandemic among the many people who refuse to wear masks or practice social distancing. Human beings are deeply unwilling to change their minds. And when the facts clash with their preexisting convictions, some people would sooner jeopardize their health and everyone else’s than accept new information or admit to being wrong.

(Continues . . .)

Yes, clearly human behavior is a big factor here.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

But seriously though, this is Japan. Birth control pills weren't legalized here until 1999, and they still aren't covered by insurance. I'm wondering what their criteria are for deciding whether a given woman is "likely to become pregnant". Marital status? Age? Something tells me they don't simply take a woman's word for it. But I could be wrong about that.

It's usually sexually active and pre menopause.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Appears to be definite evidence of asymptomatic transmission here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...person-cluster

Indeed.

They keep talking about "shedding" and then there's this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ebd7M2SX...name=4096x4096

Talking would do enough to infect others in a lift.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, I thought that was interesting, because it ties in with a position from months back that the reason the elderly might be more likely to die while kids get nothing, is down to having had a cold more recently.

Needs more work.



I'm not sure whether that "expect" in the first sentence shouldn't be "hope". Definitely speculative, because it doesn't work that way for at least some other ssRNA viruses.

Indeed, speculative. We just don't know. I hope or speculate that perhaps some people are closer to knowing than I fear.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

88 patients is a rather small sample size.

It seems like no one can advance beyond small trials. With 400,000 people a week getting infected just in the US, it would seem that there should be a large pool of available patients for trials.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Deleted

[Chris_Halkides]

A 2020 article on favipiravir included the following passage: "Acyclovir causes chain termination at the incorporated site during the elongation of herpes simplex virus and varicella-zoster virus DNA and prevents viral DNA synthesis. However, the incorporated acyclovir is removed by the proofreading activity of viral DNA polymerase, and viral DNA elongation continues." It seems that favipiravir is a chain terminator and that it has a distinct mode of action versus ribavirin. From my quick skim of this article, it is not yet clear to me whether or not favipiravir is removed by a corresponding proofreading 3'-5'-exoribonuclease activity (ExoN) in coronaviruses. I will try to read up on it a bit more in the following days.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

From Scientific American:

Mounting Evidence Suggests Coronavirus Is Airborne—but Health Advice Has Not Caught Up
(July 8, 2020)

Haven't we known this for months? I mean, that's the whole point of masks and distancing.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Steve

What about those who are perceived as recovered? Do they have a bunch of undetected clots that could wreak havoc at any time? Scary thought.

A very pertinent and scary question.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is something really stupid. How would you like to go to a party with the INTENTION of catching the virus? Just to prove to yourself it is real. These parties exist. Here is one example
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...id-party-texas

People are dying due to this stupidity. Plus the virus is spreading even more.

Worse. A party with the intention of infecting others. That should be criminal.

[The Atheist]

Two interesting pieces of research out today:

School children found to have very low rates of infection, to the extent that one researcher suggests schools might even prove to be a brake on infections: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...schools-saxony

Still needs more work, but the evidence appears to be stacking up.

And air pollution again identified as having a very strong relationship to negative outcomes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...onavirus-study

That seems to fit into the Captain Obvious area of research, being exactly what you'd expect to see.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is something really stupid. How would you like to go to a party with the INTENTION of catching the virus? Just to prove to yourself it is real. These parties exist. Here is one example
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...id-party-texas

I have my doubts about the reality or at least the accuracy of this story. The only source for it is a video by a doctor at Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, who says she "heard about" the case. Of course the hospital wouldn't be allowed to release the man's name, but there's been nothing from any family member, anyone who actually provided care for the man (including the nurse who heard his last words), nor anyone else who attended the alleged party. The account sounds more like a moral fable than an actual course of events (though it could turn out to be both).

[dann]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is something really stupid. How would you like to go to a party with the INTENTION of catching the virus? Just to prove to yourself it is real. These parties exist. Here is one example
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...id-party-texas

People are dying due to this stupidity. Plus the virus is spreading even more.

I came up with something similar four months ago when I still thought it sounded like a good idea: COVID-19 Party - A Modest Proposal. I guess I should have trade marked it. Based on what we know now about how it can make even some young people seriously ill, I wouldn't attempt it even if I were what I back then considered to be the right age.
However, at this point some parties might as well be regular Covid-19 parties:
Efter stigende smittetal: Regeringen lukker Bulgariens indendørs barer og diskoteker (DR.dk, July 9, 2020)
After rising number of infections: The government locks down Bulgaria's indoor bars and discos

[marting]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I have my doubts about the reality or at least the accuracy of this story. The only source for it is a video by a doctor at Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, who says she "heard about" the case. Of course the hospital wouldn't be allowed to release the man's name, but there's been nothing from any family member, anyone who actually provided care for the man (including the nurse who heard his last words), nor anyone else who attended the alleged party. The account sounds more like a moral fable than an actual course of events (though it could turn out to be both).

Quite possibly a moral fable. People often spread fables if they believe it will improve execrable behavior. But if proven to be false it can then encourage the behavior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/u...d-parties.html

Quote:

County health officials in Washington State walked back earlier claims that young people were gathering in a deliberate attempt to be exposed to the coronavirus.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by marting

Quite possibly a moral fable. People often spread fables if they believe it will improve execrable behavior. But if proven to be false it can then encourage the behavior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/u...d-parties.html

Regarding the Times story, even though the Washington state health officials retracted the claim, I can see the logic (and the risk) in "let's get exposed and get it over with" arrangements (including in "party" form) for young low-medical-risk people. I predicted this myself a few months ago. Of course, if the young people who do that don't quarantine themselves afterward it goes from understandable to sociopathic in my estimation, and more recent findings of potential long term effects even for mild cases bumps the risk higher than I would have estimated back then. But still, people making an assessment of "I stand to risk X and gain Y" is plausible enough. The hard part would be the logistics. How do you find someone who's tested positive (or else you're more likely to catch some other crud from them), symptomatic (or else you don't really know whether they're contagious), and feels good enough to host or attend a party?

"I went to a Covid party hosted by a Covid-infected person because I thought Covid was a hoax" is, by contrast, simply incoherent. If you don't believe the disease exists or can be transmitted, why go to an event with that ostensible purpose? Or if you're just going to the party to have fun, disregarding the risk of Covid, why call it a Covid party? The closest it comes to making sense is if you interpret it as, "I thought the risk of getting a severe case if you're under 40 was a hoax," along with the previous idea of getting infected to get it over with.

[The Atheist]

Uh-oh.

That "can you catch Covid again" question may have been answered in the positive.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/202...-herd-immunity

tl;dr version:

Guy has mild Covid, recovers & tests negative twice.

Then gets a bad dose, requiring multiple hospital visits.

This would be unbelievably bad news for a second wave, considering the overwhelming majority of people having a very mild/asymptomatic dose in the first wave.

Those shades of 1918 just went up a notch.

[marting]

California has a listing of different models along with description and links to raw data and often, computer code.

Nice!

https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Haven't we known this for months? I mean, that's the whole point of masks and distancing.

Yes, but the new information here is that the virus can be transmitted not only via large droplets, which fall quickly and against which distancing generally protects, but also via very tiny aerosolised droplets, which can hang in the air for potentially a very long time - up to 2 hours is the timeframe that I have seen on various sources. There was speculation as to whether this might be the case a couple of months ago, but now I believe that there is evidence.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yes, but the new information here is that the virus can be transmitted not only via large droplets, which fall quickly and against which distancing generally protects, but also via very tiny aerosolised droplets, which can hang in the air for potentially a very long time - up to 2 hours is the timeframe that I have seen on various sources. There was speculation as to whether this might be the case a couple of months ago, but now I believe that there is evidence.

If all these "could survive,,," and "could be transmitted..." were true, wouldn't we all be dead by now?

We need some kind of R value for theoretical methods of transmission. Top- crowded work and living conditions, 100. Grocery store cart handles, .000002

Isn't that the kind of stuff to expect from epidemiologists?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Uh-oh.

That "can you catch Covid again" question may have been answered in the positive.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/202...-herd-immunity

tl;dr version:

Guy has mild Covid, recovers & tests negative twice.

Then gets a bad dose, requiring multiple hospital visits.

This would be unbelievably bad news for a second wave, considering the overwhelming majority of people having a very mild/asymptomatic dose in the first wave.

Those shades of 1918 just went up a notch.

Thank you for providing the "TL;DR" version! It provides context to the raw link, which is the primary goal of the campaign for good linking.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by casebro

If all these "could survive,,," and "could be transmitted..." were true, wouldn't we all be dead by now?

We need some kind of R value for theoretical methods of transmission. Top- crowded work and living conditions, 100. Grocery store cart handles, .000002

Isn't that the kind of stuff to expect from epidemiologists?

Yeah. You're welcome to search for that information rather than relying on my vague memory.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Myriad

"I went to a Covid party hosted by a Covid-infected person because I thought Covid was a hoax" is, by contrast, simply incoherent. If you don't believe the disease exists or can be transmitted, why go to an event with that ostensible purpose? Or if you're just going to the party to have fun, disregarding the risk of Covid, why call it a Covid party? The closest it comes to making sense is if you interpret it as, "I thought the risk of getting a severe case if you're under 40 was a hoax," along with the previous idea of getting infected to get it over with.

To mock the hoax. Remember when James Randi would "overdose" on homeopathic pills?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Uh-oh.

That "can you catch Covid again" question may have been answered in the positive.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/202...-herd-immunity

tl;dr version:

Guy has mild Covid, recovers & tests negative twice.

Then gets a bad dose, requiring multiple hospital visits.

This would be unbelievably bad news for a second wave, considering the overwhelming majority of people having a very mild/asymptomatic dose in the first wave.

Those shades of 1918 just went up a notch.

There's no evidence, only an attempt to explain someone having negative tests followed by positive tests.

Until the virus of the initial infection is genetically analyzed and found to be different from the second infection, don't put too much stock in these stories, even if it is a doctor making the assertion.

These are usually considered failure to clear the virus rather than a reinfection.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yes, but the new information here is that the virus can be transmitted not only via large droplets, which fall quickly and against which distancing generally protects, but also via very tiny aerosolised droplets, which can hang in the air for potentially a very long time - up to 2 hours is the timeframe that I have seen on various sources. There was speculation as to whether this might be the case a couple of months ago, but now I believe that there is evidence.

There was evidence quite a while ago.

This is the WHO and the CDC barely coming around officially.

Give it a couple of weeks and people will collectively remember we have always been at war with Eurasia.

[marting]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Uh-oh.

That "can you catch Covid again" question may have been answered in the positive.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/202...-herd-immunity

tl;dr version:

Guy has mild Covid, recovers & tests negative twice.

Then gets a bad dose, requiring multiple hospital visits.

This would be unbelievably bad news for a second wave, considering the overwhelming majority of people having a very mild/asymptomatic dose in the first wave.

Those shades of 1918 just went up a notch.

Looked at an interesting paper from a link in the VOX piece:

Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...429v1.full.pdf

There is a pretty large antibody decline after 90 days that is more in line with the endemic cold coronavirus than SARS or MERS which declined after a few years.

Not good. Another factor of major significance is that antibody tests may not be counting lots of people infected more than 2 months earlier. This would mean that the percentage of the population that is actually infected may be significantly larger than sero estimates suggest. This suggests a somewhat lower IFR OTOH it's a problem for vaccines and herd immunity which won't occur w/o long lasting immunity and vaccines. But this doesn't mean vaccines may not be very effective or long lasting since this isn't yet known. It's just a bad sign. It will make determining the efficacy of a vaccine quite a bit harder as they will have to wait quite a while to see if a vaccine candidate is actually providing anything other than a short term protection.

Worse, there is a significant possibility that Covid-19 will become an endemic virus.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's no evidence, only an attempt to explain someone having negative tests followed by positive tests.

Until the virus of the initial infection is genetically analyzed and found to be different from the second infection, don't put too much stock in these stories, even if it is a doctor making the assertion.

These are usually considered failure to clear the virus rather than a reinfection.

That is even worse. The positive results were 3 months apart! That would mean that Covid 19 is a chronic illness. It would also mean that after Australia clears everyone from the virus it could spontaneously reappear, not from overseas but from these cases.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Uh-oh.

That "can you catch Covid again" question may have been answered in the positive.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/202...-herd-immunity

tl;dr version:

Guy has mild Covid, recovers & tests negative twice.

Then gets a bad dose, requiring multiple hospital visits.

This would be unbelievably bad news for a second wave, considering the overwhelming majority of people having a very mild/asymptomatic dose in the first wave.

Those shades of 1918 just went up a notch.

Makes you wonder whether a vaccine will work.

Possibly the first time he had it, it was a false positive and he actually just had a cold? False positives seem to occur with PCR tests. About 2% of the time on average.

What Zebra Mussels Can Tell Us About Errors In Coronavirus Tests (NPR)

Quote:

Cohen discovered that false positives were actually fairly common. The best labs reported few if any, but other labs reported up to 8% of their positive results were false positives. The average was around 2% false positive.

If false positives are actually happening in mild cases, you could get a "reinfection" because the first time was actually only a false positive.

[marting]

Nearly everything is shut down in California that is inside and some things outside.

With one big exception:

Indian Casinos. They closed in the first wave but are staying open now. For instance: Barona, in San Diego

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

False positives seem to occur with PCR tests. About 2% of the time on average.

I just want to add a little bit more to this for clarification after reading more.

A false positive rate of 2% does not mean that 2% of all positive results are false positives, it means that 2% of all tests conducted (both positive and negative) are false positives.

What this means in practice is that, if say the true rate is 8% and the false positive rate of 2%, then 20% of all positive results are false positives.

The lower the true rate is, the greater the proportion of positive results will be false positives.

So out of say, 10,000 positive tests (out of 100,000 total tests given), 2,000 of those may be false positives.

Given that, the scenario where someone gets "reinfected" because of a false positive test seems quite likely to occur given enough tests conducted.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by marting

Nearly everything is shut down in California that is inside and some things outside.

With one big exception:

Indian Casinos. They closed in the first wave but are staying open now. For instance: Barona, in San Diego

The governor of California has no authority to shut them down? (Supposedly tribal governments are "sovereign" aren't they? Or "autonomous". Not sure what the right word is.)

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I just want to add a little bit more to this for clarification after reading more.

A false positive rate of 2% does not mean that 2% of all positive results are false positives, it means that 2% of all tests conducted (both positive and negative) are false positives.

What this means in practice is that, if say the true rate is 8% and the false positive rate of 2%, then 20% of all positive results are false positives.

The lower the true rate is, the greater the proportion of positive results will be false positives.

So out of say, 10,000 positive tests (out of 100,000 total tests given), 2,000 of those may be false positives.

Given that, the scenario where someone gets "reinfected" because of a false positive test seems quite likely to occur given enough tests conducted.

According to Wikipedia, you are exactly incorrect. False positive rate^WP

Quote:

The false positive rate is

where is the number of false positives, is the number of true negatives and is the total number of negatives.

This would go a long way toward explaining many misunderstandings earlier.

[chrispy]

Well, we finally had our first positive in my itty-bitty mountain town in Guatemala. A police officer from the city gave it to his mom whilst visiting her. Now she and 5 family members are in 3 week guarded quarantine. It was only a matter of time, but it is here now. We had it pretty easy. I hope it doesn't spread. The health care in my town is pretty much nonexistent. We have only one doctor that I would consider to be even 'good' and several thag are 'meh', as well as one fake doctor who lies about her credentials, experience, and education.

We have no hospital, just small independent clinics.

[marting]

Originally Posted by GodMark2

According to Wikipedia, you are exactly incorrect. False positive rate^WP

This would go a long way toward explaining many misunderstandings earlier.

Seems to me the difference between the expected value of 1840 (by calculation assuming TFN rate=0 as it's not given) and the 2000 false negatives in Puppycow's example is quibbling. IE: 18.4% v 20%.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by marting

Worse, there is a significant possibility that Covid-19 will become an endemic virus.

Well, there would be one upside to that - pension costs will be slashed.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

If false positives are actually happening in mild cases, you could get a "reinfection" because the first time was actually only a false positive.

And to put that into perspective, when the world is conducting millions of tests a day, small percentages add up to big numbers.