So many unresolved or partially resolved questions about the coronavirus

[W2R]

OK, I have been curious about how long it would take after exposure to the coronavirus, before someone could get sick.

******************************************
Now, for the common cold, which can be caused by numerous different viruses, we have this information:

Symptoms of a common cold usually appear one to three days after exposure to a cold-causing virus.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/common-cold/symptoms-causes/syc-20351605

******************************************
The best similar info I could find for the novel coronavirus, just one particular virus, was this:

An incubation period is the time between when you contract a virus and when your symptoms start.

Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure.

https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period

******************************************
And then, of course, there is the claim that lots of people have COVID-19 and are asymptomatic; I wonder if that is the case for the common cold as well? And yet we have a much more exact incubation period for the common cold. Why is COVID-19 so much more difficult to study and find even the most basic data on, than the common cold which can be caused by numerous viruses?

Maybe there is a need to get a better handle on this at some point. It seems like nearly any other information about this virus that we look for is equally vague and non-specific, which I guess is understandable since there hasn't been time for many studies to be completed.

OK, sorry if this is a bit of a vent but as a certified Grouchy Old F*rt it bothers me. I am really trying not to blame this on newer generations of scientists. Surely they know how to do scientific studies just as well as past generations of scientists did, right? But I am borderline skeptical when asked to believe that this type of information about only one particular virus is just utterly impossible to pin down any closer than this.

 

[USGrant1962]

...

Why is COVID-19 so much more difficult to study and find even the most basic data on, than the common cold which can be caused by numerous viruses?

Maybe there is a need to get a better handle on this at some point. It seems like nearly any other information about this virus that we look for is equally vague and non-specific, which I guess is understandable since there hasn't been time for many studies to be completed.

OK, sorry if this is a bit of a vent but as a certified Grouchy Old F*rt it bothers me. I am really trying not to blame this on newer generations of scientists. Surely they know how to do scientific studies just as well as past generations of scientists did, right? But I am borderline skeptical when asked to believe that this type of information about only one particular virus is just utterly impossible to pin down any closer than this.

The common cold has been studied for 100 years, COVID-19 for 100 days.

 

[W2R]

The common cold has been studied for 100 years, COVID-19 for 100 days.

60+ years ago we knew the same for the common cold as we do now; I remember that from my childhood; and also I think that was known for many decades before I was born. It doesn't take a year to determine an incubation period! But granted, COVID-19 only arose in Wuhan back in November or December. So you make a good point.

That's only long enough for maybe 7-10 of the longer 14 day incubation periods end on end. (Of course in a study they would not have to be end on end to be included...) I guess it doesn't really matter *when* the incubation period for a given coronavirus transmission was, or how long it took, as long as it is complete and the sample size is big enough.

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

The common cold has been studied for 100 years, COVID-19 for 100 days.

After 100 years there is still no cure for the common cold. Not immediate anyway. It seems to take one and a half to two weeks to get over a cold whether you take anything for it or not.

 

[target2019]

Coronavirus is a newer more successful branch of virus. People may expect that things stay the same, but these things are evolving targets. In time our scientists, especially if not refunded and derided, will solve this. Then there will be a more deadly one I'm afraid in the future.

 

[W2R]

So, with 2,117,769 confirmed coronavirus cases in the world as of today, we don't have enough data yet to determine something as simple, un-invasive, and easy to determine as an incubation period even after months to conduct the study?

I know studies take time but when working I used to oversee studies that were much more complex and lower priority than this would be, and were completed more quickly.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

So, with 2,117,769 confirmed coronavirus cases in the world as of today, we don't have enough data yet to determine something as simple, un-invasive, and easy to determine as an incubation period even after months to conduct the study?

I know studies take time but when working I used to oversee studies that were much more complex and lower priority than this would be, and were completed more quickly.

I think it boils down to way too many people "looking into it"...conflicting information, contradictions, and a lot of white noise.

 

[W2R]

I think it boils down to way too many people "looking into it"...conflicting information, contradictions, and a lot of white noise.

Yeah, that's probably the case.

 

[RobbieB]

Me thinks it has to do with the biology of the host. Just like some are "carriers" and never show symptoms others become ever sicker and die in a couple weeks.

 

[Aerides]

So, with 2,117,769 confirmed coronavirus cases in the world as of today, we don't have enough data yet to determine something as simple, un-invasive, and easy to determine as an incubation period even after months to conduct the study?

Well for now we do know it's 2-14 days, and perhaps that will narrow, perhaps it won't. I'm sure we all have some questions about the virus that will be answered over the coming days/months/years as more data is available.

I mean if I got sick and didn't know who I had likely caught it from, and the date of that interaction, my data would be meaningless. That's probably the case a good chunk of those cases.

 

[pb4uski]

There is one thing that we know for sure about the common cold.... if you just soldier through and keep doing what you usually do then it takes about a week... if you slow down, drink plenty of fluids, take meds, et al then it takes about seven days.

 

[W2R]

Me thinks it has to do with the biology of the host. Just like some are "carriers" and never show symptoms others become ever sicker and die in a couple weeks.

People do respond to it differently than one another, true. But then, I think people respond differently to the common cold from one another also, even though they don't get deathly ill and die from it. We all know people who just never catch colds, and they are probably "carriers" too.

 

[Lcountz]

All this talk about a vaccine in a year or so....

There is NO vaccine yet for the common cold, or, for HIV....after 35+ YEARS.

I wish they would stop saying "a vaccine will take 12-18 months".

Better to say there MAY be a vaccine.

 

[W2R]

Well for now we do know it's 2-14 days, and perhaps that will narrow, perhaps it won't. I'm sure we all have some questions about the virus that will be answered over the coming days/months/years as more data is available.

I mean if I got sick and didn't know who I had likely caught it from, and the date of that interaction, my data would be meaningless. That's probably the case a good chunk of those cases.

Yeah. But then there are the cases on the cruise ships and military vessels. Sad though it is, what a goldmine of information that would be for studies.

I do have a personal interest in this information. I am totally isolated except for seeing Frank. He goes to the grocery store every week or two, so I am interested in incubation times. (He has not been sick yet, and neither have I.) It would be nice to think, "Oh, that grocery trip that he made on April 7th (or whenever) turned out to be safe for him after all. Now all I have to worry about are the ones he will be making in the future."

 

[W2R]

All this talk about a vaccine in a year or so....

There is NO vaccine yet for the common cold, or, for HIV....after 35+ YEARS.

I wish they would stop saying "a vaccine will take 12-18 months".

Better to say there MAY be a vaccine.

+10000000!!!!

This is what annoys me no end. They want to start out with something really hard like the vaccine, when they don't even know the simplest facts about the virus, such as incubation period, yet.

 

[easysurfer]

So, with 2,117,769 confirmed coronavirus cases in the world as of today, we don't have enough data yet to determine something as simple, un-invasive, and easy to determine as an incubation period even after months to conduct the study?

I know studies take time but when working I used to oversee studies that were much more complex and lower priority than this would be, and were completed more quickly.

I think a big part comes down to mass testing of who is infected and who is not, which we (USA) don't have a handle on. Only then can true data results be understood. Without that reliable information, as the old saying goes back at w*rk, "garbage in, garbage out" .

 

[W2R]

I think a big part comes down to mass testing of who is infected and who is not, which we (USA) don't have a handle on. Only then can true data results be understood. Without that reliable information, as the old saying goes back at w*rk, "garbage in, garbage out" .

+1
And do we even know if the coronavirus test is reliable, or what percentage of false positives and false negatives it yields? I haven't even heard of a study done on that. Maybe some of the "asymptomatic carriers" are simply false positives when they were tested?

I feel like we are castaways, adrift in a huge sea of endless maybe's and could-be's.

 

[easysurfer]

+1
And do we even know if the coronavirus test is reliable, or what percentage of false positives and false negatives it yields? I haven't even heard of a study done on that. Maybe some of the "asymptomatic carriers" are simply false positives when they were tested?

+1

Exactly. Back in the days of w*rking, time and time again I'd be part of the testing team. Though not glamorous, was so vital to get the test data correct. Otherwise, back to the garbage in - garbage out. Or another way of describing, flying blind.

The worse thing now is to have unreliable tests. Saw on the morning news today that some people who recovered from the virus in South Korea are ending up testing positive again. But now the question is whether they truly are positive or something inaccurate with the testing.

 

[W2R]

+1

Exactly. Back in the days of w*rking, time and time again I'd be part of the testing team. Though not glamorous, was so vital to get the test data correct. Otherwise, back to the garbage in - garbage out. Or another way of describing, flying blind.

The worse thing now is to have unreliable tests. Saw on the morning news today that some people who recovered from the virus in South Korea are ending up testing positive again. But now the question is whether they truly are positive or something inaccurate with the testing.

Yeah. That's why I think it is so important to get a few of these easy, fundamental questions answered with a little basic, quick research NOW... so that the eventual vaccine will be a good, working vaccine instead of garbage. The vaccine research will build on these basic building blocks of early knowledge and will depend on the quality of that knowledge.

 

[LOL!]

So, with 2,117,769 confirmed coronavirus cases in the world as of today, we don't have enough data yet to determine something as simple, un-invasive, and easy to determine as an incubation period even after months to conduct the study?

I know studies take time but when working I used to oversee studies that were much more complex and lower priority than this would be, and were completed more quickly.

How many studies did you oversee that could kill you or the people working with you no matter what precautions you took?

 

[LOL!]

+10000000!!!!

This is what annoys me no end. They want to start out with something really hard like the vaccine, when they don't even know the simplest facts about the virus, such as incubation period, yet.

The groups working on the vaccines are not the same people working on many of the other facts that you want to know.

Also, don't be so sure that the incubation for all the various viruses that cause the common cold are the same or even if the published incubation period is correct. Grant proposals to learn some of that stuff for the common cold doesn't get one research money.

 

[easysurfer]

Yeah. That's why I think it is so important to get a few of these easy, fundamental questions answered with a little basic, quick research NOW... so that the eventual vaccine will be a good, working vaccine instead of garbage. The vaccine research will build on these basic building blocks of early knowledge and will depend on the quality of that knowledge.

Yes. Testing should be a vital early part. Like you said, the basic building blocks of early knowledge.

 

[intent]

There is one thing that we know for sure about the common cold.... if you just soldier through and keep doing what you usually do then it takes about a week... if you slow down, drink plenty of fluids, take meds, et al then it takes about seven days.

I see what you did there.

 

[pb4uski]

I see what you did there.

Ain't it the truth tho? Seems that way to me.

 

[Scuba]

All this talk about a vaccine in a year or so....

There is NO vaccine yet for the common cold, or, for HIV....after 35+ YEARS.

I wish they would stop saying "a vaccine will take 12-18 months".

Better to say there MAY be a vaccine.

And I wish people would stop saying that the economy should remain shut down until we have a vaccine. Really?