CCTV news: “Fuyang” will infect others? From 22 to 23 this month, 1130680 people in Xicheng District of Beijing completed nucleic acid test in different batches, and one person was found to be positive in preliminary screening. At 16:39 on January 22, he was tested at the lotus market inspection point in Shichahai. Xicheng District later reviewed the case and found that it was a confirmed case diagnosed after entering Shanghai in August 2020 and cured. After meeting the relevant regulations, the case entered Beijing in October. It did not rule out the possibility of re positive. The person had been transferred to the designated hospital for further diagnosis and treatment. The close contacts were isolated and observed, and nucleic acid testing was carried out. The places involved were tested and disinfected, and the relevant personnel and environmental samples were collected The nucleic acid test results were all negative.
In addition to the case in Beijing, which may be Fuyang, on January 24, a confirmed case was found in Fushan County, Shanxi Province. After recovery, the patient recovered from the disease. The patient was an immigrant who was positive for nucleic acid test after the period of home medical observation and isolation, and was diagnosed as asymptomatic infection. On January 18, a case of imported asymptomatic infection was found in Jieyang, Guangdong Province.
So why is it that nucleic acid is positive again after recovery? Is Fuyang still infectious? Is there a large proportion of “Fuyang”? For these concerns, let’s listen to the authoritative interpretation of Wu Zunyou, chief epidemiologist of CDC.
Wu Zunyou, chief epidemiologist of China Center for Disease Control and prevention, said that some patients were found to be nucleic acid positive in the follow-up after discharge. There are three possibilities for this phenomenon. First, nucleic acid test shows false negative or false positive. For example, the two nucleic acid negative before discharge are false negative or the follow-up nucleic acid positive results are false positive. Second, the virus is reactivated Third, reinfection. For the first case, the occurrence of false negative or false positive can be reduced by multiple sampling of multiple sites. For the second case, the mechanism is not clear. Limited studies suggest that the infectivity of this patient is not strong, and no case of transmission has been observed. For the third case of reinfection, its infectivity is similar to that of other first-time infected patients. Overall, the proportion of patients with nucleic acid positive again in the follow-up is not high, about less than 5%.