2 ms·

I recently met someone who claimed the symptoms of their SARS-CoV-2 infection started on December 7, 2019, soon after her friends returned from a trip to China.

I recently met someone who claimed the symptoms of their SARS-CoV-2 infection started on December 7, 2019, soon after her friends returned from a trip to China. She said the doctors didn't know what to make of her ("lots of bloody mucus", iirc). By February her doctors realized they should test for SARS-CoV-2, and that she tested positive. Her symptoms mostly resolved by March 2020. The conventional narrative tells us that SARS-CoV-2 started in Wuhan in December 2019 and reached the United States in January 2020 [1]. I think it perfectly reasonable to think this particular weakling virus spread rapidly in China starting in fall 2019, became more virulent as the sun went away and people's vitamin D levels went down. I think the virus blew up in Wuhan, China and northern Italy because of the air pollution [0]. When the medical industry came up with a test and decided to treat the most obvious symptoms of the virus (oxygen saturation levels) instead of the factors that made people vulnerable to the virus, casualties got out of control [2]. Now we've realized that the virus on its own, in a season with adequate sunlight, is basically equivalent to the flue: good at killing old people, not so good for justifying the massive disruptions hoisted upon us all. Casualties have gone down now that doctors aren't ventilating so aggressively. Imagine what would happen if they realized Vitamin D and zinc deficiency and chronic inflammation and concurrent bacterial infections (TB, etc) are treatable conditions that make people vulnerable to the virus. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23085633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23085633 [1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavi... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993264

cjbprime 6y ago
It seems surprising that she could maintain a positive PCR test for eight weeks. I thought the window was much smaller. Here's a paper that says the false negative rate of an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 increases from 21% on day 9 to 66% by day 21 of symptom onset (and keeps increasing after that). https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/...

cjbprime 6y ago

It seems surprising that she could maintain a positive PCR test for eight weeks. I thought the window was much smaller. Here's a paper that says the false negative rate of an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 increases from 21% on day 9 to 66% by day 21 of symptom onset (and keeps increasing after that). https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/...