My personal experience with Coronavirus
I want to share my personal experience with Coronavirus to illuminate a couple of facts that might guide you in decisions you make for your well-being and that of others.
I was exposed to and contracted the virus at work. In my office 6 of the 8 people sharing the office have either been confirmed to have/had the virus (3 of us tested positive) or have shown classic symptoms of the virus but did not have the test to confirm it (in one case the test was botched).
My symptoms were a loss of taste, dissimilar to that one experiences when they have a cold. The way I can best describe it is that the sense organs seem dead, as opposed to dampened as with a cold. A recurring fever that would subside at night and into the morning to return in the early afternoon, topping out at 102 f. And a severe loss of energy.
I have been asymptomatic for 13 days now. The last time I tested, 10 days AFTER the symptoms subsided, I STILL tested positive for the virus, and so I continue to be in isolation. I test again on Friday and Saturday, the CDC having determined that to get cleared you must test negative twice in a 24 hour window. My last test showed it was clearing up some, the results being described as a "weak positive." They are hopeful I will be cleared on the next tests.
My hope is that some may find this helpful in discerning when to end their own isolation period. I understand that many do not have access to one test, much less the follow up tests I have been privileged to have had. So maybe my experience can help to guide you.
Take care and stay safe. My heart is with you and your loved ones.
March 31st, 2020 at 11:58 AM ^
Sanitized before clicking on this.
Thanks for sharing.
I have a Question for the Board -- it should be within the discussion just below, but it might get lost.
I was talking with my wife about how a recovered patient may still tests positive. She said that's because the virus take long to "shed", so there is still residual (dead?) virus in the body.
Can someone who knows elaborate on why a recovered patient will later test positive?
As the virus is weakened in your body, because your antibodies are winning the war, you will start to feel better. But the virus is still present and you are contagious for some period after you feel better.
Besides that - I hear the people test positive, get cured (don't test positive) and then test positive shortly thereafter but don't show symptoms.
These cases are rare from what I understand but are almost certainly just testing anomalies.
From what I understand, as your body fights off the virus, it sheds less and less but it's not quite linear and there may the shedding will be uneven in various places within your respiratory tract.Also a negative test does not necessarily indicate you have no trace of the virus in your system. It just means that the sample was taken didn't have enough virus RNA register as positive, i.e. it did not have the threshold amount to register as positive.
We also don't know yet whether the body completely rids itself of the virus. It could be like chicken pox in that it becomes dormant but still hides in the body.
Or another example is HIV. There are treatments now that lower the HIV count below the threshold of certain tests. Researchers thought this meant people were cured but when they went off their meds, the virus began to reproduce and they tested positive again. The problem was that the tests weren't sensitive enough to register the low levels in the body. So they made more sensitive tests with lower thresholds and then picked up positives where they weren't previously.
So this is all to say there are a lot of variables that are bouncing around: sensitivity of tests, sample differences, uneven viral shedding, etc.
This is why the OP is saying that they want to see two negative tests before clearing. Still not fool proof but much better then just one test.
Thanks - great explanation and comparison with HIV.
Something of a guess but that genetic material -RNA, and the basis of a test- is still present in your cells and being 'made' ...your body has likely mostly won the fight and on its way to ridding of everything but some remains and can somehow show up on RT-PCR (test).
March 31st, 2020 at 12:01 PM ^
That part about being asymptomatic for so long and still positive for the virus is such a huge take-home lesson for the public. Don't go by the feels.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:11 PM ^
There's very likely a difference between testing positive and being contagious after recovery.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:19 PM ^
I have no idea. I am curious to look back on what we learn from this. Until then my assumption is that I am possibly contagious.
That's fair. Stay isolated as long as you can. I don't see it as viable for the majority of people to wait for 2 negative results.
Glad you got through what I presume is the worst of it!
I 100% support you in your assumption that you are still contagious until specifically told otherwise. Much better to be safe than sorry since so very much is unknown yet about COVID-19.
I applaud your cautious approach as you continue your recovery!
March 31st, 2020 at 12:30 PM ^
Did you just make that up? Please cite your source. Testing positive means they shoved a swab up his nose and found the virus, so, yeah, potentially contagious.
No. Why would I make something like that up? There is a lot out there on this.
Link to an article citing a preprint study from Germany.
...the study suggests that while people with mild infections can still test positive by throat swabs for days and even weeks after their illness, those who are only mildly sick are likely not still infectious by about 10 days after they start to experience symptoms.
hence, the two week isolation which has pretty much been said since day 1.
@BBF Uhhh the words "suggest" and "likely" are highly unscientific or clinical or even useful. Plus they are from a summary of the study, and that summary could've been written by anyone with little or no medical knowledge. In other words, it's a worthless citation. I mean Michigan was highly likely NOT to botch the punt vs MSU in 2015...
Oh, great! Now, in addition to living the COVID pandemic, I have to re-live that play! Thank you very little!
March 31st, 2020 at 12:37 PM ^
It's a fair point, but I would say it's probably right at the very end of the infection. At the far right end of the infectious curve for an individual (if you were plotting "SARS-CoV-2 virions" on Y axis and time on X axis), you're probably going to hit a window where the infected cells aren't packaging enough new virions to meet a threshold definition of "infectious" but you'll still test positive because some virus is still active.
By way of analogy, a male with a low sperm count is deemed infertile because the probability of fertilization is so low, but it's not impossible. It's just that the math is against you.
The one caveat is that RNA (all coronaviruses are RNA viruses), unlike DNA, is a very transient molecule with a short half-life (hours, not days) in a cell so if you're picking it up with RT-PCR, there's definitely recent viral activity and not just random leftover cell or viral debris from the infection. But we have no idea how big or small that non-infectious window would be (yet).
Not trying to be a dick but when "probably" relates to being contagious or not, i.e., "...you're probably going to hit a window...," I'd err on the side of caution and further isolation. This disease is too insidious to screw around with.
OP, glad you are feeling better and best wishes for a full and speedy recovery.
Good post and points about the RNA aspect.
One of the most informative comments on the Corona virus I have read. Thank you!
I doubt there's much difference. I don't think the tests we have now are super sensitive so to remain positive there still has to be significant viral shedding which means the host is probably contagious still. Not for sure but probably.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:01 PM ^
Best wishes for a continued recovery.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:02 PM ^
Thanks dude. This is helpful.
Hope you continue to improve and on the bright side, once you fully recover you should have some immunity unlike the rest of us.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:09 PM ^
The possibility of reinfection is still a question mark, so I will be practicing social distancing like everyone else until it is clear whether or not I am truly immune.
Thank you for your kind words.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:45 PM ^
Yeah this really bugs me how much I keep hearing that once you get it and get through it you can't get it again. I believe even Fauci keeps saying it. I don't see how it's possible to know that at this point in time. Unless in China they took a large group of people who were positive for it and maybe had mild symptoms and discomfort but got through it with a negative test then re-exposed them to it. Would be nice to know. If not it seems like a big medical assumption at this point.
During the SARS classic outbreak, they tested those who recovered and they had antibodies in their system for 8-10 years. Since SARS-COV-2 is very similar, there is justification for thinking it will be the same case. Since other countries have developed serology tests for SARS-COV-2, there are identifiable antibodies in those who have been exposed to it. The last piece of the puzzle is how long do they last.
Did they actually follow up on these people 8-10 years later, or do you mean that they appeared to have enough antibodies at the time (2003) to last 8-10 years?
The idea of having enough antibodies to last for 8-10 years doesn't make sense in this context. It has to be based on follow-up testing 8 and 10 years later.
If you've recovered from a covid-19 infection, you'll have immunity. This is how the immune system works. Developing a vaccine would be pointless, otherwise. The real unknown is how long your immunity will last. Six months, one year, five years? Undetermined right now.
1) six months of immunity isn't much (and it could be less than that)
2) it could mutate significantly enough for original antibodies to not be effective (like influenza strains) so that could be another factor.
My understanding from everything I’ve read (far from an expert), Long-term immunity requires the body to retain the ability to produce antibodies to fight the specific virus, and the virus not to mutate outside of the window of antibody effectiveness (think how the flu is different every year). Any experts want to weigh in on that interpretation?
I think the scientific findings have shown relatively slow/low amounts of C19 mutation (good news!) and there have been some preliminary tests on animals (one example below) that show some immunity against reinfection.
I do agree we don’t know 100% at this point how long immunity might last, but the evidence coming in seems positive. The anecdotal cases of “reinfection” in Asia are being chalked up to false positive/negative testing or the patient not actually being fully recovered.
https://www.livescience.com/monkeys-cannot-get-reinfected-with-coronavirus-study.html
March 31st, 2020 at 12:03 PM ^
Thanks for sharing. Glad to know that you are on the path to recovery.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:05 PM ^
Keep getting better
March 31st, 2020 at 12:06 PM ^
Interesting post, glad you’re doing better. How long did you have symptoms for? Just trying to gauge the entire timeline from infection to recovery.
New study out yesterday suggests it’s typically 20-25 days. Does that seem consistent with your experience?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
March 31st, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
Thank you.
It is a little unclear to me exactly how long symptoms of any magnitude existed, but I had pronounced symptoms for 6 days or so.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:08 PM ^
Thanks for sharing. Is it safe to say that it was the sickest you’ve ever been or would you say you had a mild case?
March 31st, 2020 at 12:15 PM ^
I had a serious illness when visiting Costa Rica that they were unable to identify upon returning to the States that was more severe but shorter lived.
I think I am fortunate that it did not effect my respiratory system. So I guess I would categorize it as moderate.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:11 PM ^
OP, if you'd be open to sharing I'm curious about your age. Thanks for what you've provided.
- - -
In my extended social circle reports of really sick health care workers are slowly piling up. (Thankfully no ICU-level cases so far.) Regardless of what the overall COVID-19 death rate ends up being (lower / higher than the flu), I don't remember this happening in prior years and I've known many of these people for a long time.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:17 PM ^
I am in my late 40s.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:28 PM ^
I live in Seattle and am in my late 40's too. I am otherwise healthy but have been worried a little about what would happen when/if I get it. So this is very helpful. Thank you for posting and sharing!
One thing to keep in mind is that the disease affects everyone differently. Even within age groups, for people that are generally healthy, some will have mild symptoms, or no symptoms at all, and others become severely sick, and require hospitalization. Best bet is to do your best to not get sick at all.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:22 PM ^
Saw a report (who knows how accurate it is) that 80% of Coronavirus patients in ICU are considered overweight.
March 31st, 2020 at 12:30 PM ^
I’m not an MD (so I think we need to be careful about correlation vs causation), but that seems to line up with some of the preexisting conditions that are showing higher death rates:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
March 31st, 2020 at 12:46 PM ^
That may be, but 70% of Ameicans over the age of 20 are overweight or obese, so not sure this is statistic is that useful.
Also worth noting how they came by this data. Most docs just use height, weight, age, & gender to calculate BMI. BMI alone has its flaws particularly for those who lift weights and are muscular as it does not differentiate weight between fat and skeletal muscle tissues or anything else for that matter. I am considered "overweight" by BMI at 5'10" and 200 lbs, but I'm approximately 10% body fat using calipers so I'm fairly lean for a 40 year old man. But, I also find it hard to believe that people coming in for Covid 19 and asked to get on the scale to measure height and weight as if it were getting a physical. So, are they just eyeballing this judgement of being overweight?
I'm pretty sure they're judging people strictly by their BMI as you just described. And I agree completely that BMI shouldn't be used by itself to determine "overweight-ness". Probably a composite of using BMI and a body-fat analysis would be the most accurate.
I'm sure many of these people have medical histories so those could be consulted to determine whether they're overweight or not. BMI might not be an exact science, but my guess is that the vast amount of "high BMI" individuals in the US are not there because they have such high muscle mass.
My experience is that they ask about height and weight during ER intake.
To answer your last question, we aren't "eyeballing" anything. Every patient gets an actual height and weight done on admission. If they cannot stand up on a scale then we get a bed weight.