3 ms·

He spoke more about that than was written. It seems to be the case that the viral load of the point of infection is a major factor in determining how bad it get

by s9w 7y ago

He spoke more about that than was written. It seems to be the case that the viral load of the point of infection is a major factor in determining how bad it gets. Therefore low-load infections are actually desirably since those are the asymptomatic cases.

Aeolun 7y ago
Isn’t that a super easy vaccine then? Insert super low load, stay home for two weeks, and you have been immunized.
- s9w 7y ago
  That was actually my reaction, too. But I don't think that will go through any ethics commission. Also the immunity will also last for about a year he said. Which is mind-boggling in itself.
  - netjiro 7y ago
    Low viral load exposure will likely increase the chances of a milder progression. But that's a very risky gamble. Will still be way too lethal. It is still unknown if this effect is insignificantly small. Instead we could grow lots of viral particles. Irradiate them to certain death. Then use it to repeatedly challenge the immune system over a long period. Very expensive and nowhere near as effective or reliable as a proper vaccine, but would induce some level of resistance in a fraction of the population.
mannykannot 7y ago
Can this study really be expected to provide data on the viral load of the point of infection, and at the time of infection? (I would guess that measurements of the distribution of the viral load, after the infection has progressed for some time, would be dependent on how the person's imune system is responding, and conseqently not good evidence for this proposition.) If not, then is this a well-established feature of respiratory virus infections? In other words, to what extent is this claim backed by evidence? And is it evidence from studying C19 specifically?
- ianbooker 7y ago
  As far as I understand, this is a combined / linked survey and antibody study. So evidence for this must be originating from the questionnaire. How could you proxy for viral load? And more specifically: How reliable can this measure be? So short answer: To a degree yes, but unlikely that it is a reliable finding.

by s9w 7y ago

Aeolun 7y ago

Isn’t that a super easy vaccine then? Insert super low load, stay home for two weeks, and you have been immunized.

s9w 7y ago
That was actually my reaction, too. But I don't think that will go through any ethics commission. Also the immunity will also last for about a year he said. Which is mind-boggling in itself.
- netjiro 7y ago
  Low viral load exposure will likely increase the chances of a milder progression. But that's a very risky gamble. Will still be way too lethal. It is still unknown if this effect is insignificantly small. Instead we could grow lots of viral particles. Irradiate them to certain death. Then use it to repeatedly challenge the immune system over a long period. Very expensive and nowhere near as effective or reliable as a proper vaccine, but would induce some level of resistance in a fraction of the population.

mannykannot 7y ago

Can this study really be expected to provide data on the viral load of the point of infection, and at the time of infection? (I would guess that measurements of the distribution of the viral load, after the infection has progressed for some time, would be dependent on how the person's imune system is responding, and conseqently not good evidence for this proposition.) If not, then is this a well-established feature of respiratory virus infections? In other words, to what extent is this claim backed by evidence? And is it evidence from studying C19 specifically?

ianbooker 7y ago
As far as I understand, this is a combined / linked survey and antibody study. So evidence for this must be originating from the questionnaire. How could you proxy for viral load? And more specifically: How reliable can this measure be? So short answer: To a degree yes, but unlikely that it is a reliable finding.