Covid-19 / SARS-Cov2 - naučne/medicinske informacije i analize

[wwww]

4 hours ago, handys said:

 

Da li je do sad prof. govorio o tome koliko su dugo zarazni oni koji su dobili simptome? Isto tako, da li je bilo reci o vracanji simptoma kad su jednom prosli? Pitam jer mi deluje relevantno i za ovo oko antitela tj da bi moglo imati neke veze.

To je poslednji pasus gore (sve o cemu prica je u proseku): zaraza si i pre pojave simptoma, nekih 3 dana pre toga. Maksimalna zaraznost dan pre simptoma. Od simptoma pa do 4 dana sa simptomima opada zaraznost (tj. koncentracija virusa u grlu), 4. dana je prakticno sasvim nezarazan (znaci ne 100% nezarazann, nego minimalno), a polse 7. dana vise uopste nije zarazan. Tako je rekao. To se poklapa s periodom kad se virus iz grla spusti u pluca.

Ako me sad secanje ne vara, antitela bi trebalo da se pojave oko 10. dana (cini mi se od pojave simptoma, ne od zarazavanja) - morala bih da proverim u transkriptima, imalo je negde.

U podcastu 31 su ga pitali za ove ponovo pozitivno testirane.

Evo ovde google prevod:
 

Spoiler

 

Quote

Q: We have to take a step back when it comes to testing, we were now always on the antibodies. We have to look again at the PCR test because there have been various reports from China and South Korea over the weekend about patients who were considered to have recovered or were discharged from the hospital and have now been tested again positively. So this is not about antibodies, but about the actual virus detection in the throat swab, for example, or from the lungs. Is it conceivable that the virus will be reactivated? You also examined the course of the PCR tests on the Munich patients.

 

 

Quote

Christian Drosten: Yes, exactly. This is something that has already been discussed, we even briefly mentioned it here in the podcast. There was an article about it before. It has now come up again in the discussion, partly because several articles from China have appeared again on the same topic. And also because there was a public statement from the health authorities in Korea who also said they have now discovered this phenomenon.

This phenomenon can be described as follows: A patient is discharged from the hospital, secured as a corona negative discharge, and healed. And a short time later - it is about days, three, four days or sometimes up to seven days, eight days - it happens that the patient is then tested again. And suddenly he is positive for the virus in the PCR. It is said that he may have newly infected himself, or that he was actually not immune at all, even though he survived the disease. Or the virus has come back again, and there are certain infectious diseases known, herpes viruses are the prime example that can come back again and again. One asks the question: is this perhaps also the case with this new virus? In addition, one can say that there are unfortunately still very few precise descriptions in the scientific literature about the course of excretion of the virus in patients in different sample types, for example in swabs from the throat or in lung secretions, also called sputum, or in stool samples, that are yes all the sample types that we know the virus is detectable. Exactly how this relates to excretion over time has only been described in a few studies so far.

 

We made and published one of them. Perhaps we can set it here again as a reference, it is now quite available, it is published. And everyone can see it for themselves.

We took an overview of this elimination over time in nine patients from Munich, in nine early cases that were treated in Schwabing, in the Munich clinic in Schwabing, with Clemens Wendtner. You can already see the detection limit of the polymerase chain reaction. And you can see exactly, just like towards the end of the course, where the patients get well again, that there is still a virus. It is sometimes detectable, sometimes for a few days in a row, then again it is not detectable for a few days in a row. It always jumps above and below the detection limit. These are just statistical phenomena that occur there. Such a PCR can only examine a certain sample, a certain sample volume for viruses. There are statistical distribution phenomena that basically lead to the virus being there all the time, but the test cannot always grasp this. You just have to imagine it like this, I often explain it to the students as follows: you have a paddling pool full of water and goldfish swim in it. And they are there without a doubt. But now, with a bucket, take a sample from this paddling pool, blindfolded. And then it may be that you have a goldfish in your bucket and sometimes not. However, one would not deny that there are goldfish in the paddling pool.

 

Quote

Korinna Hennig: But when it comes to testing, that means there are uncertainties, because you are being tested, for example, and then the virus happens not to be recognized, even though you may be infectious.

Christian Drosten: Exactly. Let's stick to this picture, the paddling pool. There are a lot of goldfish in there and whenever I take out a bucket of sample there are goldfish in the bucket and I say: Aha, there are goldfish in this paddling pool. But when I have fewer and fewer fish, that's at the end of the disease, there is less and less virus in the sputum, for example, or in swab specimens in particular, then it always happens: I take a bucket out of the paddling pool and there there is only water in it and no goldfish. This can happen twice in a row if I take a sample of it every day. Then I say: Here the PCR was negative twice in a row. The patient is now healed and is released. And if I then continue to test at home, for example as part of follow-up studies or because the health department comes and says we want to check the household context, I take a sample out again. Then it may be that the virus is suddenly detectable again. So figuratively speaking: I then take another bucket of water and then there is a goldfish in it again. It's that easy. That is my explanation for this phenomenon, precisely because it occurs only a short time after hospital discharge. If you continue testing, you will always find a positive result.

 

And now the question is how to deal with it. I can tell you that something like this would not happen here in Germany because we have a culture here that such results are questioned relatively quickly and that rules are always seen with the possibility of an exception. So, a German health authority would practically say: Well, okay, that's clear, that's what happened now. But in Asian public health culture, there is a much stronger strictness in dealing with such rules. It's not that bad. I don't want to criticize that now. It is simply a cultural difference that it is adhered to exactly, if such a rule is established, it will be followed. And when it is said that we agree now, a patient who has been PCR negative twice in a row, we define that as cured and we discharge him. Then it can happen that this also creates an apparent contradiction if you examine and then find it, but now he has a virus. Then certain statistical phenomena appear that are collected with a certain thoroughness, that's a thoroughness if you say: No, this rule is not being questioned now, this is no exception, but we are now taking it into the Table. The patient was tested twice and now he is positive again. And now we test a few hundred such layoffs and write it all down in the table and only discuss it after we have completed the table. Then we write it together and write a scientific publication about it. That happened exactly, several times.

These scientific publications are now in a public resource and readable, and now this discussion process is beginning. So, now it starts that people read such publications that may not be familiar with the details and say: what is that? It looks like a re-infection. What's going on with this virus here? And it will then be disseminated through other discussion channels. Then there is also excitement and uncertainty. And then there are other experts who say: Oh, if this virus is unable to reactivate!

This is a process that we are currently experiencing in a broader scientific community, which science journalists are also taking part in, but which are sometimes very different. There was a very nice, differentiated article about it in the "Zeit", now especially at the weekend. I liked it very much on the subject. Of course, the person who wrote this is not allowed to say as I do - so I can say: Oh, my own data, I know it, and I simply don't believe in it as a scientist, in everything I do about this Knowing patient histories, I would say, my experience tells me that these are probably just these random distributions at the end of the course of the disease, especially when you work with swab samples from the throat, they are sometimes positive and negative. A journalist shouldn't say that wetly. He has to express it a little more beautifully and differently. He did that in the article, but you can read it between the lines.

 

 

Quote

Korinna Hennig: There is a study on the publications that you mentioned, from China, in other words from Wuhan, and from the hospital in Shenzhen, for example. It was mainly about patients who had no symptoms or had only weak symptoms at all.
Christian Drosten: Yes, exactly. One can perhaps talk about two studies. In one study, this is a smaller study, there are five out of 55 patients in whom this has been observed. This study is a bit unclear in terms of technology, because in some places it is said that throat swabs have been tested. And in other places, however, it is said that they are respiratory tract samples. That means there is likely to be a bit of a mess. It may well be that you just made a cut out of your throat when you were discharged, and at other times you might have a look at the lung secretions that someone coughs up. Something like this can happen, they are two different types of samples. And we know exactly that the lung secretion stays positive much longer after discharge. And we also believe that this is not infectious to others. We tried this using cell culture virus isolation studies, which we also did in our publication. We already believe that this is no longer infectious. We have never been able to isolate infectious virus. That was the one study. It is not entirely clear which sample was actually tested.
The other study is actually even more interesting because it is a bit more explicit. 172 patients were examined beyond the time of discharge. In 25 of them you could see that the test was positive again, on average after 5.23 days after discharge, I wrote out the number extra. Since it is also clearly stated, the discharge criteria were twice negative throat swabs in a row. So: The patient had to have a negative throat swab twice, then he was discharged as healed. But we know exactly that the throat swab is the sample that is the earliest negative for patients. So in the second week of illness, many patients no longer have a positive throat swab on most days when testing, but stool and sputum are still almost always positive. And then it is said that of these 25 patients, 24 had severe courses. For me, this suggests that if someone has a difficult course, they will of course be released later. Then he is treated longer in the hospital. And especially with these patients we know that the throat virus is almost always completely gone. The throat virus had had time to be eliminated. So with severe courses, the throat swab is no longer positive after this long time. Then it is said that this has been found in 25 patients.

But for 14 of them, this was again a positive laboratory determination after being released from the stool, not from the throat swab, and that tells me that we have exactly this mix-up here. Because with the stool specimens in particular we know that they remain positive for the virus for an extended period of time, by the way, here too I have to say again without being able to detect any infectious virus in them. This is probably just a dead, excreted virus. And with others, it was a throat swab that was again tested positive. But then of course we have to say again, a throat swab, which can of course also contain coughed up pulmonary mucus. You cough up the stuff and it sticks to the back of your neck. You can see from the way this was done methodically and in which samples it was found and also from the type of patient that you say, especially long-term patients who were seriously ill, that there is a risk here has to fall into this trap, into this confusion. I would even guess that the authors themselves know that this error could be present here, but that, I really don't want to say it disrespectfully, but rather partly also appreciatively, publishes it with an Asian thoroughness to have. It is actually a cultural difference. I know this because I have been working with Asian colleagues on these epidemiological issues for a long time. I see this with great sympathy, because it also creates a certain degree of reliability in epidemiological data.

 

 

 

ukratko: posle 7 dana koncentracija virusa u grlu se asimptotski priblizava nuli, najcesce je ispod praga detekcije testa, ali zbog blagog oscilovanja ove koncentracije eto ponekad skoci "just" iznad praga detekcije. A Azijati su vrlo precizni, pa to detektuju i pribeleze.

Ponekad se desi da se uzme uzorak iz stolice ili iz pluca direktno, gde se virus duze moze detektovati (njegov genetski materijala, ali neaktivan), a neko ko ne poznaje problematiku i azijsku kulturu moze pogresno da to shvati kao pravi test iz grla koji je ponovo pozitivan i da se virus aktivirao.

Takodje, zavisi i od istorije bolesti pacijenta. Onaj koji je bio ozbiljniji slucaj, pa je duze bio u bolnici, kod njega je bilo dovoljno vremena da se kriva koncentracije bas asimtotski priblizi nul i tu se ne detektuje ponovo virus, a ovi koji su se krace lecili su malcice "odmaknitiji" od x-ose, pa je veca verovatnoca da neka tacka skoci preko praga osetljivosti testa.

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

Dobio je i dodatno pitanje da razjasni infektivnost (govori o drugim aspektima moguce greske testiranja):

 

Spoiler

 

Korinna Hennig: Finally, I would still like to briefly come back to the picture with the goldfish, because the big question for all of us and for patients is always: How long have I been contagious? How long should I completely stay out of everything? And are there also false positive and negative tests? Has the question, detached from this reactivation issue, whether I fish a goldfish from the pool or just water, basically have to do with the virus concentration in the throat swab? So if I am tested negative, for example, and positive two days later?

Christian Drosten: Yes, but that's basically my expectation in such a case. It is also quite common for me to receive requests from clinical colleagues - sometimes even from patients myself, but unfortunately I have less and less time to answer these questions directly. It is always my first suspicion that this mistake happened, that we actually have very little virus left, for example in the throat. This is just so little virus that it is sometimes detected and sometimes not, purely statistically.

 

But there are also other explanations. What we have discussed now is the most likely. But there are things that are less likely. I'll give you two examples. One example is that there are simple laboratory errors or sample errors. For example, this can be related to: someone made a bad smear. So he didn't do a nasopharyngeal smear (go over the nasal floor and then through to the back of the throat with the swab), but he just scratched around a bit in the front of the nostril. These are not good samples, there is not much virus in them. So it may be that such a sample does not show the virus. And later you make another sample, which is better taken and the virus is in there.

But it can also happen that something goes wrong in the laboratory. In rare cases it happens that from one sample to the other contaminated virus. It is true that we do not test the samples individually, but we test them in entire collections in the laboratory, in hundreds of samples in one pass. Sometimes it is the case that there is a very positive sample in the machine next to one that has no virus. And there jumps a little bit over there. This can be a human error when handling these samples when screwing on and screwing on. It can happen very rarely on the machine. Such machines in the laboratory are validated against this error, they are technically well checked, but something happens at very low rates. Something like that is also included in a technical false positivity rate or in a technical specificity number. No laboratory test is perfect, that's the way it is. That is an example. There are mistakes.

The other example is: There are also observations in the biological course of the disease that are at least interesting as far as this is concerned. For example, I once observed in a patient that it looked as if the virus in the lungs had already disappeared or almost disappeared. And then suddenly it came back massively strong, and the virus concentration became much higher again. And at the same time, the patient was getting better and better. That's funny. One would think that the more virus, the worse the patient has to be. But it can also be different. If, for example, someone has certain areas in their lungs that are no longer well ventilated and that are not well connected to the respiratory tract, then a lot can happen locally at this point in the lungs, even dead viruses - that doesn't have to be the case live virus is more - that is, dead virus accumulates in the mucus there. You have an area in your lungs where the mucus doesn't come out well. And at some point the patient gets better and healthier and breathes better again. Then these areas are ventilated again and suddenly this mucus can be coughed up again. But then a lot of virus was accumulated over days.

 

Korinna Hennig: But that's no longer infectious.

Christian Drosten: That is no longer infectious. And suddenly the laboratory test is again very positive. Sometimes you see things like that too. So, the more patients you see and accompany in the laboratory, the more you get a feeling for things that happen less often. But it is still the same in medicine: it is common and the rare is rare.

 

 

 

 

 

[Laki21]

https://nova.rs/region/nemacki-virusolog-nemoguce-je-zaraziti-se-koronom-dva-puta/

[McLeod]

Imajuci u vidu sve nastupe i brojke koje nisu bas bile u skladu sa njima, kao i ovo olabavljivanje mera iako deluje da je epidemija i dalje na vrhuncu, govori nam neke stvari.

 

Prva stvar, oni koji su detektovani i potvrdjeni dnevno nisu nuzno i testirani u prethodna 24 sata. Nego mnogo pre. Nismo bili sigurni koliko ih ima, ali ocigledno je ta brojka znatna, sto sada sa sigurnoscu mozemo reci.

 

Od preko 80 grafika koje mozemo smatrati za relevantne, nasem nije slican nijedan na svetu.

 

To prakticno znaci da su, ili zbog namernog stelovanja i peglanja, ili zbog te sporosti u testiranju i davanju rezultata, nama dnevne brojke bile dosta drugacije pre nedelju, pa i dve.

 

Mozemo to videti i po recimo Vucicevim nastupima kad on dodje i kaze imali smo jako tesku noc, pa onda ispadne 220 novih, a dan pre toga bilo 250. Ali zato onda 10 dana uzastopno bude po 320-380, nema logike da su to prave brojke.

 

Zato smatram, da uz tu zurbu oko izbora, mi zaista jesmo u solidnom padu i da su nekoliko dana, zbog brzeg dobijanja rezultata i testiranja, brojke realnije.

 

Samo sto to tako ne izgleda jer ispada da trcimo po Tibetu vec dve nedelje. Verovatnije je da smo, dok nisu mogli da se povataju oko testiranja, mi imali dnevno i po 500-600 nekoliko dana i da je to bio peak, a da od tada brojke padaju.

[wwww]

2 hours ago, Laki21 said:

https://nova.rs/region/nemacki-virusolog-nemoguce-je-zaraziti-se-koronom-dva-puta/

Malcice su neke stvari, pa recimo slobodno interpretirali i preterali, ali sve u svemu nije strasno (zna srpska stampa da objavi senzacionalistickije stvari).

 

Drosten je kao jednu od pozeljnih pozitivnih obrta naveo da ce eto neko ko je u poslednjih godinu dana prelezao corona grip mozda imati nekakav imunitet na covid-19 (kad su ga pitali postoji li neki scenario da se situacija ipak okrene na bolje ranije nego sto se do sada pretpostavlja). Ali to je samo wishful thinking, nema nikakvih dokaza za ovo.

Drugi iznenadjujuci pozitivni scenario bi bio da se deca uopste ne zarazavaju, vec da tih nekih 10-20% dece u startu predstavlja deo imuniteta krda, pa ostatak stanovnistva treba samo da dogura do preostalih 40-tak % i epidemija ce se sama uvesti u mirnije vode. Naravno da je ovo takodje wishful thinking, a poslednja studija iz Kine, o kojoj je juce govorio, sugerise da se i deca zarazavaju, sto eliminise ovaj pozitivan (a iznenadjujuci) sceario.

 

U par mojih postova (od danas) imate google prevod oko ponovo pozitivno testiranim u Aziji, ukljucujuci i metaforu s zlatnim ribicama. Pa procitajte original.

 

Ne secam se da je pominjao da komunikacija s drugima treba da traje max. 6 sekindi. Znam da je ranije pominjao da je za prenos potrebno recimo nekih 15-tak min razgovora, da nije svaki susret s drugom individuom nuzno zarazan. Sto je i logicno kad se uzme u obzir nacin prenosenja virusa (kapljicama pljuvacke i aerozolima treba neko vreme da "doputuju" do sluzokoze druge osobe, plus da od svih mogucih pravaca se "zapute" bas u pravcu sagovornika i njegovih usta/nosa).

 

Edit: ok, sad vidim da su bas preuzeli tekst iz Vecernjeg lista, ali vazi isto.

Edited April 21, 2020 by wwww

[handys]

12 hours ago, wwww said:

Drugi iznenadjujuci pozitivni scenario bi bio da se deca uopste ne zarazavaju

 

Mali twist dolazi iz Francuske, gde je 9- godisnji decak bio pozitivan, ali od 172je s kojima je bio u kontaktu, nije preneo nikome.

[wwww]

Odobrena prva klinicka studija u Nemackoj za vakcinu, upravo bila KZS instituta koji odobrava studije:

https://www.pei.de/DE/newsroom/pm/jahr/2020/08-erste-klinische-pruefung-sars-cov-2-impfstoff-in-deutschland.html

 

Quote

The vaccine candidate from the Mainz biotechnology company BioNTech is a so-called RNA vaccine, which contains the genetic information for the construction of the so-called spike protein of CoV-2 or parts thereof in the form of ribonucleic acid (RNA). In the approved first part of the clinical trial, 200 healthy volunteers between the ages of 18 and 55 are vaccinated with one of several slightly modified vaccine variants. After waiting for observation of the vaccinated, further subjects of the same age range are vaccinated in the second part of the clinical trial. The additional inclusion of subjects with an increased risk of infection or with an increased risk of a severe course of COVID-19 disease is provided for in the second part of the clinical trial, for which additional study data must be submitted in advance.

Different variants of the RNA vaccine candidate are tested in the approved part of the clinical trial. In addition to tolerance, the ability to generate an immune response to SARS-CoV-2 after administration of a certain amount of RNA (dose) is examined (first dose finding). Different RNA types and different lengths and modifications of the spike protein are tested and the influence of a second vaccination is examined.

 

This is only the fourth approved test of preventive, specific COVID-19 vaccine candidates in humans worldwide. Given the serious consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is an important step in developing an effective and safe COVID-19 vaccine in Germany as soon as possible and making it available worldwide wherever possible.

Based on current knowledge, the Paul Ehrlich Institute assumes that further clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in Germany will begin in the next few months. Combating the pandemic will require several vaccine products to ensure adequate care.

 

https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001038-36/DE

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by wwww

[NMX]

Glasom @Charlie Foxtrot: nek je testiraju na Saši Zverevu

[Sunshine State]

Dr. Jeff Smith, a physician who is the chief executive of Santa Clara County government, said earlier this month that data collected by the CDC, local health departments and others suggest it was “a lot longer than we first believed” — most likely since fall 2019.”

“This wasn’t recognized because we were having a severe flu season,” Smith said in an interview. “Symptoms are very much like the flu. If you got a mild case of COVID, you didn’t really notice. You didn’t even go to the doctor. The doctor maybe didn’t even do it because they presumed it was the flu.”

 

O ovom sam pricala i sa par prijatelja s Floride i Pensilvanije, koji su bili "kao nikad" bolesni krajem godine, i zbog toga bi bilo vrlo pozeljno/potrebno sto pre proveriti antitela, jer je lako moguce da je vec odredjeni deo populacije prelezao covid-19.

 

Juce komentarisala s prijateljem, koji je lekar na FL, pa pise za svoju zenu:

"Natasa je imala simptome krajem Novembra, pocetak Decembra - 3 nedelje suvi kasalj, gusobolja, shortness ob breath 2 nedelje po povratku iz NY, klopali smo u autentičnom kineskom restoranu (sve Kinezi). 2 ture antibiotika nisu pomogle, inhaler, steroid i tek se posle 3 nedelje smirilo...
Još jedna koleginica isto takva kl. slika..."

 

Druga prijateljica - pronadjoh njenu poruku s pocetka novembra:

"Ovaj kašalj nikako da prode, već tri sedmice, i sinoc i prosle noći sam se budila, gusi me, nemam zraka, rekoh možda je vrijeme da odem dr..."

 

Moja poruka njoj posle povratka s Floride tad:

"Ja se razbolela, evo umirem od kaslja.."

 

Mozda je anegdotal, mozda je koincidencija.....

[wwww]

5 minutes ago, NMX said:

Glasom @Charlie Foxtrot: nek je testiraju na Saši Zverevu

Mislim da je on jos na Floridi.

[wwww]

5 minutes ago, Sunshine State said:

Dr. Jeff Smith, a physician who is the chief executive of Santa Clara County government, said earlier this month that data collected by the CDC, local health departments and others suggest it was “a lot longer than we first believed” — most likely since fall 2019.”

“This wasn’t recognized because we were having a severe flu season,” Smith said in an interview. “Symptoms are very much like the flu. If you got a mild case of COVID, you didn’t really notice. You didn’t even go to the doctor. The doctor maybe didn’t even do it because they presumed it was the flu.”

 

O ovom sam pricala i sa par prijatelja s Floride i Pensilvanije, koji su bili "kao nikad" bolesni krajem godine, i zbog toga bi bilo vrlo pozeljno/potrebno sto pre proveriti antitela, jer je lako moguce da je vec odredjeni deo populacije prelezao covid-19.

 

Juce komentarisala s prijateljem, koji je lekar na FL, pa pise za svoju zenu:

"Natasa je imala simptome krajem Novembra, pocetak Decembra - 3 nedelje suvi kasalj, gusobolja, shortness ob breath 2 nedelje po povratku iz NY, klopali smo u autentičnom kineskom restoranu (sve Kinezi). 2 ture antibiotika nisu pomogle, inhaler, steroid i tek se posle 3 nedelje smirilo...
Još jedna koleginica isto takva kl. slika..."

 

Druga prijateljica - pronadjoh njenu poruku s pocetka novembra:

"Ovaj kašalj nikako da prode, već tri sedmice, i sinoc i prosle noći sam se budila, gusi me, nemam zraka, rekoh možda je vrijeme da odem dr..."

 

Moja poruka njoj posle povratka s Floride tad:

"Ja se razbolela, evo umirem od kaslja.."

 

Mozda je anegdotal, mozda je koincidencija.....

Mnogi su imali zesci grip (ili "grip") ove zime.

 

U Santa Klari su radili onu studiju koju je Prof Drosten pominjao u ponedeljak (s procenjenih nekih 2,5% min. i 4,2% max. zarazenih u generalnoj populaciji, vec prema korekciji koja se radi)

[Sunshine State]

2 minutes ago, wwww said:

Mnogi su imali zesci grip (ili "grip") ove zime.

 

U Santa Klari su radili onu studiju koju je Prof Drosten pominjao u ponedeljak (s procenjenih nekih 2,5% min. i 4,2% max. zarazenih u generalnoj populaciji, vec prema korekciji koja se radi)

 

Cim se pojavi u laboratorijama test na antitela, uradicu, mozda ce mi biti neophodno za putovanja

[40Wins]

Zenin brat od ujaka radi kao spediter, u februaru imao upalu pluca u fazonu odvaljuju ga grudi, primao inekcije. Mozda je obican grip, ali ne bi me zacudilo da je virus stigao mnogo ranije svuda...

[ZiS]

Imao sam i ja pocetak upale pluca u februaru i moj kolega sa posla 10-ak dana ranije...Ne treba sad ni da paranoisemo da me ne shvatis pogresno 🙂

[wwww]

starting tomorrow serological tests in Bergamo, Brescia, Lodi and Cremona. From Tuesday throughout Lombardy

[ras kass]

Sta kaze Drosten na Zeljkovo ozoniranje?? 

[Sunshine State]

30 minutes ago, ZiS said:

Imao sam i ja pocetak upale pluca u februaru i moj kolega sa posla 10-ak dana ranije...Ne treba sad ni da paranoisemo da me ne shvatis pogresno 🙂

 

Pa nije to paranoja! Ja Boga molim da to JESTE bio covid-19!

[Kronostime]

9 minutes ago, ras kass said:

Sta kaze Drosten na Zeljkovo ozoniranje?? 

Nargila nije ozon.

[ZiS]

'bem li ga...ne posmatram to na taj nacin...bilo, nije bilo, zakacim nesto svake sezone, radim sa decom pa mi je to normalno..vaznije mi sad psihu da sacuvam 😁..u svakom slucaju, hvala na lepim zeljama 😋

[Sunshine State]

1 minute ago, ZiS said:

'bem li ga...ne posmatram to na taj nacin...bilo, nije bilo, zakacim nesto svake sezone, radim sa decom pa mi je to normalno..vaznije mi sad psihu da sacuvam 😁..u svakom slucaju, hvala na lepim zeljama 😋

Mislila sam na sebe i svoju boljku zimus.....kamo srece da je bio Covid!

[wwww]

37 minutes ago, ras kass said:

Sta kaze Drosten na Zeljkovo ozoniranje?? 

Ceka da ovaj napise manuskript, pa da ga analizira.

[Kronostime]

29 minutes ago, Sunshine State said:

Mislila sam na sebe i svoju boljku zimus.....kamo srece da je bio Covid!

D`izvines - bolje da je bio neki David.

[nemanjaol]

Nekako ne verujem da je Covid tu toliko dugo. Da se prosirio svetom vec u novembru/decembru vec sada bi te studije koje istrazuju antitela morale da pokazuju znacajno prisustvo u populaciji. 

 

Msm saj Boze da je tako onda bismo mogli sve da otvorimo do kraja maja i da sve bude kao i ranije vec sad. 

 

Možda je bio neki malo zesci grip, u decembru je bukvalno pola Beograda bilo bolesno. Moj brat i njegova devojka npr su isto vukli neki gadan kasalj oko 3 nedelje. 

[40Wins]

2 hours ago, ZiS said:

Imao sam i ja pocetak upale pluca u februaru i moj kolega sa posla 10-ak dana ranije...Ne treba sad ni da paranoisemo da me ne shvatis pogresno 🙂

Ma jasno, nego covek radi u špediciji, non stop u kontaktu sa vozačima, koji jel te, ne mogu tako lako da odrzavaju osnovnu higijenu ruku, putuju tamo amo.

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, Sunshine State said:

Mislila sam na sebe i svoju boljku zimus.....kamo srece da je bio Covid!

I ja se nadam da sam to prelezala. Ali ko bi ga znao.