Difference between revisions of "Contagiousness"
(→What is already known) |
m (→Topic 1) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* The R<sub>0</sub> was estimated as 2.2,8 3.8,11 and 2.6812 by different research all round the world. The WHO published an estimated R<sub>0</sub> of 1.4 to 2.5. <Ref name="Fang2020-mv">Fang, Yaqing, Yiting Nie, and Marshare Penny. "Transmission dynamics of the COVID‐19 outbreak and effectiveness of government interventions: A data‐driven analysis." Journal of Medical Virology (2020).</ref> | * The R<sub>0</sub> was estimated as 2.2,8 3.8,11 and 2.6812 by different research all round the world. The WHO published an estimated R<sub>0</sub> of 1.4 to 2.5. <Ref name="Fang2020-mv">Fang, Yaqing, Yiting Nie, and Marshare Penny. "Transmission dynamics of the COVID‐19 outbreak and effectiveness of government interventions: A data‐driven analysis." Journal of Medical Virology (2020).</ref> | ||
| − | =Topic | + | =Topic viral shedding= |
==Observations== | ==Observations== | ||
| − | ==Analysis and | + | * A study among COVID19 survivors in China showed that 5 out of 147 started to test positive again for SARS-CoV2 after having fully recovered and after having tested negative repeatedly.<ref>interpretation==https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/healthmedicine/china-reports-deeply-disturbing-coronavirus-development-c-765460.amp?utm_campaign=share-icons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&tid=1585264794990&__twitter_impression=true</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | ==Analysis and | ||
| + | * The finding in Wuhan that survivors start testing positive again could point towards a possible carrier stage, but it could also simply point to re-contamination, as the positive test is PCR. | ||
| + | |||
==Consequences for action== | ==Consequences for action== | ||
| − | + | * More studies are needed to understand viral shedding after recovery, before we consider consequences to this observation | |
=References= | =References= | ||
Revision as of 07:01, 27 March 2020
This page collects observations, interpretations, and consequences for action about Contagiousness of SARS-CoV2. Please observe the structure of the page, when you add your content. Please use references where possible. Remember to find the relevant page. For example, if your observation is about Sources, please use that page, instead of posting your content here.
Contents
What is already known
- The earliest most probable SARS-like serial interval scenarios resulted in an estimated R0 of 2 - 2.7 (90% CrI) [1]
- The R0 was estimated as 2.2,8 3.8,11 and 2.6812 by different research all round the world. The WHO published an estimated R0 of 1.4 to 2.5. [2]
Topic viral shedding
Observations
- A study among COVID19 survivors in China showed that 5 out of 147 started to test positive again for SARS-CoV2 after having fully recovered and after having tested negative repeatedly.[3]
==Analysis and
- The finding in Wuhan that survivors start testing positive again could point towards a possible carrier stage, but it could also simply point to re-contamination, as the positive test is PCR.
Consequences for action
- More studies are needed to understand viral shedding after recovery, before we consider consequences to this observation
References
- ↑ Abbott, Sam, et al. "The transmissibility of novel Coronavirus in the early stages of the 2019-20 outbreak in Wuhan: Exploring initial point-source exposure sizes and durations using scenario analysis." Wellcome Open Research 5.17 (2020): 17.
- ↑ Fang, Yaqing, Yiting Nie, and Marshare Penny. "Transmission dynamics of the COVID‐19 outbreak and effectiveness of government interventions: A data‐driven analysis." Journal of Medical Virology (2020).
- ↑ interpretation==https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/healthmedicine/china-reports-deeply-disturbing-coronavirus-development-c-765460.amp?utm_campaign=share-icons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&tid=1585264794990&__twitter_impression=true
