My optimistic side wants the truth to be that there are many strains, and the worst one spread in the last few months. This would mean that there are other strains that provide adequate anti-bodies and yet are mild enough to go unnoticed by professionals.
back
I keep hearing this sentiment, but I cannot square it with the fact that a non-trivial percent of infected people need to be on ventilators for roughly 20 days. If, back in December, 10k people had what we now know as Covid, there would have been dozens of people on ventilators for weeks at a time in January. The average flu patient needing intubation is only on a ventilator for about 5 days. I just don't see a situation where we have dozens of people testing negative for the flu yet requiring a higher level of ICU care and no alarm bells are raised.
2 comments
All of the flu surveillance numbers suggested a historically bad season this year, and there was a big peak in flu-like mortality in February. It's entirely possible that we were mis-characterizing the data:
The data from that time period seems to coincide with positive influenza test results:
Stanford did a study looking for Coronavirus cases in Jan and Feb in the Bay area.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/04/testing-pooled...
> The researchers found that the burden of COVID-19 in the Bay Area prior to mid-February was low. Only two of nearly 3,000 people with respiratory-disease symptoms who were tested in early 2020 at Stanford Health Care or affiliated clinics for common respiratory viruses were infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Sure, but the bay area has very few detected infections, in general.
It seems pretty obvious that we need to do the same experiment on samples from New York, Washington, Michigan, etc.
"a non-trivial perfect of known infected people"