I think you're half catching what I am saying or half responding.
Oh no, I get exactly what you're saying and I've given you full and honest responses. As I will again. Yes, you are correct. There are tons of individuals who recover or are non-transmittable after two full weeks. And as you said, "but not all." We agree. Thing is, if the virus survives for only two full weeks, what is accounting for that "not all" number? Even if we included doctor error, it still isn't going to account for all cases. The obvious answer is re-infection.
Now, getting back to a point I brought up previously, not all studies are done objectively. I think we can both agree that the CDC is not made up of morons. So, why did they release that official video on their channel in which they showed how to make an improvised mask out of a cotton bandana; and gave the DIY project their recommendation. Even though, anyone with knowledge of how viruses are transmitted would instantly realize that such a recommendation would provide very little protection to the general public. Why?....
To prevent mass panic. Not to present factual information to the general public. But to prevent panicking on a National level. Virus hit California and Florida hard, before coming up to NYC. By the time it got here, N95s were nowhere to be found. Walking through my neighborhood, I overheard people getting very upset and scared that they couldn't find masks at even obscene mark-ups to buy. So, if you're the CDC, you tell folks that a two layer cotton mask DIYed from a 100% cotton bandana will absolutely protect them from getting infected.
Which we both know isn't true. WHO knows it too. Which is why they released those revised guidelines. (Personally, I still say a 100% cotton mask is fine
if it has a filter pocket with excellent filter material in it, such as a PM2.5 filter.) However, at the start of the pandemic in America, such advice from the CDC was absolutely needed to prevent rioting in the streets. What do you think is going to happen if a scientific study were to be carried out, objectively; and it discovered that re-infection is indeed what is accounting for that "not all" that you mentioned above?
What good would come of it? All that talk of
herd immunity goes right out the window. People panic, they freak out. I'm not surprised one bit that that official study has concluded no confirmed cases of re-infection. Why would they confirm what others have already seen? To cause mass panic and chaos in the streets among the general public? Yeah, that would be brilliant.
That 16 year-old girl is not one isolated case. There have been countless others who were physically fit and healthy who caught the virus and died. It's not just going after the very elderly or the very young. That trend during this pandemic passed more than awhile ago. The physically fit with zero immune issues are dying too. It happened 100 years ago with the Spanish Flu. It's happening now.
In fairness, if you think that 1/3 of infected patients who develop lifelong kidney issues is BS, then perhaps you too are not as in the loop as you
yourself perceive. Especially since I've already dealt with that denial by posting links in this very topic that show it's true.
Six family members in seven hospitals going by what they each perceive.... with their own two eyes. Safe to say they'd trust their anecdotal evidence over any sort of study presented to them. Can't blame them for doing that.
Definitely agree with you. There are indeed multiple reasons why a person can misunderstand what they see or come to the wrong conclusions about causes. So it's very important to remain truly open-minded to realistic
probabilities instead of just dismissing them outright and pretending no such cases exist. Such as in a particular study, for example.
Again, when I see individuals being released at the full two week mark, clearly having recovered; only to then return numerous days later, infected.... I tend to go with the most likely cause. And the most likely one is re-infection. Again, we're not talking a couple of individuals. When something keeps happening over and over again, then a clear trend has presented itself. At the same time, I know that it's far from likely to ever be confirmed as re-infection by ANY medical association. But for a study or an organization to simply outright dismiss a realistic probability as "non-existent" is worrying. Shows a lack of open-mindedness on their part, unfortunately.
