Breakthrough S. Korean Study Finds Recovered COVID Patients Who Test Positive Are NOT Infectious

ER Editor: The reporting on this, via Bloomberg, seems to rely on articles from The Korea Herald (English language). See this from a month ago titled Tests in recovered patients found false positives, not reinfections, experts say. And this from May 18 titled Isolation unnecessary for recovered COVID-19 patients: KCDC.

This is another instance of where using the PCR test has (deliberately?) caused so much confusion, enabling the fear to be ramped up over ‘reinfections’, when the test can’t actually distinguish between a live virus and dead copies. As the KCDC advises, formerly infected people now should not require any further testing to go back to work.

You’ve had it, you’re recovered, you’re clean with many years of immunity in your back pocket – now go get a life.

We’ve republished the Zerohedge article ‘as is’, which includes its repetitive quotes.

********

Breakthrough South Korean Study Finds Recovered COVID Patients Who Test Positive Aren’t Infectious

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden TYLER DURDEN

In what appears to be yet another strike against public officials like LA County’s Barbara Ferrer – that is, Democrats and others who insist that lockdowns should continue perhaps until a vaccine has been discovered and that police should punish anyone who dares violate these orders – a study from the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that patients who test positive for COVID-19 after recovering from the illness appear to be shedding dead copies of the virus.

That would suggest that these patients are not infectious, the scientists said, which helped dispel fears that some patients can remain infectious for months after being infected. While the study doesn’t answer every question about the virus’s longevity – such as patients who almost appear to have developed a “chronic” form of the illness because their symptoms have persisted for so long.

But still, the finding was greeted as a major relief, and, if anything, should encourage economies to reopen more quickly, as a potential trigger for reinfection that had panicked some experts appears to be a non-issue.

The research also undermines the reliability of ‘antibody’ tests like the ones NY Gov Andrew Cuomo insisted would be ‘critical’ for NY’s reopening.

The results mean health authorities in South Korea will no longer consider people infectious after recovering from the illness. Research last month showed that so-called PCR tests for the coronavirus’s nucleic acid can’t distinguish between dead and viable virus particles, potentially giving the wrong impression that someone who tests positive for the virus remains infectious.

The research may also aid in the debate over antibody tests, which look for markers in the blood that indicate exposure to the novel coronavirus. Experts believe antibodies probably convey some level of protection against the virus, but they don’t have any solid proof yet. Nor do they know how long any immunity may last.

A recent study in Singapore showed that recovered patients from severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS (ER: COVID-19 is a variant), are found to have “significant levels of neutralizing antibodies” nine to 17 years after initial infection, according to researchers including Danielle E. Anderson of Duke-NUS Medical School.

Other scientists have found higher levels of IgM, an antibody that appears in response to exposure to an antigen, in children, according to an article published on medRxiv. That suggests younger populations have the potential to produce a more potent defense against Covid-19. The study has not been certified by peer review.

Bloomberg offers a succinct review of some of the research into the infectious qualities of the virus, and the efficacy of antibodies in keeping patients safe from reinfection. As BBG shows, studies of SARS, which is related to the virus that causes COVID-19, suggest that antibodies keep patients safe for years, undermining warnings about a possible second wave, or worries that the virus might become endemic, which were recently raised by the WHO.

The research may also aid in the debate over antibody tests, which look for markers in the blood that indicate exposure to the novel coronavirus. Experts believe antibodies probably convey some level of protection against the virus, but they don’t have any solid proof yet. Nor do they know how long any immunity may last.

A recent study in Singapore showed that recovered patients from severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, are found to have “significant levels of neutralizing antibodies” nine to 17 years after initial infection, according to researchers including Danielle E. Anderson of Duke-NUS Medical School.

Other scientists have found higher levels of IgM, an antibody that appears in response to exposure to an antigen, in children, according to an article published on medRxiv. That suggests younger populations have the potential to produce a more potent defense against Covid-19. The study has not been certified by peer review.

The study’s findings are apparently convincing enough for South Korean health authorities to no longer require patients to be re-tested after they’ve recovered from COVID-19 and all symptoms have subsided.

As a result of the findings in the South Korea study, authorities said that under revised protocols, people should no longer be required to test negative for the virus before returning to work or school after they have recovered from their illness and completed their period of isolation.

“Under the new protocols, no additional tests are required for cases that have been discharged from isolation,” the Korean CDC said in a report. The agency said it will now refer to “re-positive” cases as “PCR re-detected after discharge from isolation.”

Some coronavirus patients have tested positive again for the virus up to 82 days after becoming infected. Almost all of the cases for which blood tests were taken had antibodies against the virus.

If nothing else, this study is just the latest reminder of how much we don’t know about the virus.

ER: Or it’s a reminder of how much we’re being played.

************

Original article 

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*