4 ms·

"it's completely unsurprising that people would want to actually research it instead of just declaring all viruses are the same. The only fools here are the peo

by timr 7y ago

"it's completely unsurprising that people would want to actually research it instead of just declaring all viruses are the same. The only fools here are the people whose impatience leads them to declare absolutes ahead of times instead of taking preventive measures while the research plays out." This hypothesis ("SARS-Cov19 does not confer immunity") falls roughly under the same category as intelligent design: the claim is so exceptional that it's a priori unlikely to be found true, and laypeople are taking normal scientist hedge-speak and exaggerating the meaning in their heads (e.g. "evolution is just a theory"). There was never really any question to anyone with any serious scientific training that humans would develop some degree of immunity to this virus. That's why people were saying it was more likely to be assay error from the start. The only open question here is how long that immunity might last. Even then, it's fairly clear that short-term (~months to a year) immunity is highly likely. (Note: I have a doctorate in biochemistry with a specialty in molecular biology, and I've studied virology and immunology. I'm not just tossing off uninformed opinions.)

exolymph 7y ago
> this falls roughly under the same category as intelligent design debate: the claim is so exceptional that it's a priori unlikely to be found true No. As the person you're responding to pointed out: "The viruses that cause colds, many of which are also coronaviruses, are pretty adept at hitting people throughout their life."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 7y ago
  "No. As the person you're responding to pointed out: "The viruses that cause colds, many of which are also coronaviruses, are pretty adept at hitting people throughout their life."" Yes. I'm talking about the question of immunity, not whether or not it's possible to get re-infected by new strains of the same virus, or whether or not immunity fades over time. It would be unlikely that this virus didn't confer at least short-term immunity to the host. The viruses that cause colds primarily re-infect because they mutate at a very high rate. We aren't seeing that with this particular virus.
  - f38zf5vdt 7y ago
    One of the currently popular mutants of the virus has a mutation in the proof-reading exonuclease that causes the virus to mutate much more often than the original strain. https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02344-6 https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
    - timr 7y ago
      "that causes the virus to mutate much more often than the original strain." This is not claimed anywhere in the paper you linked to. They show a non-synonymous mutation in RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and hypothesized that it could impact drug resistance.
      - f38zf5vdt 7y ago
        My bad, I was misremembering the paper, which mentions the exonuclease's role in fidelity. I meant RdRps. The conclusion was the same. Figure 4 shows quite clearly that the RdRp mutation is associated with further mutations. > We found that viral strains with RdRp mutation have a median of 3 point mutations [range: 2–5], whereas viral strains with no RdRp mutation have a median of 1 mutation [range: 0–3] (p value < 0.001, Mann–Whitney test). The different distribution between the two groups relative to the number of mutations is statistically significant (Fig. 4).
- amyjess 7y ago
  Immunity != long-term immunity. You can get temporary immunity that lasts for a year or so and still be able to get reinfected multiple times in your life.
  - mr_toad 7y ago
    And there are hundreds of strains and types of viruses that cause colds. Immunity to a rhinovirus serotype will not help with other serotypes of rhinovirus, let alone all the coronavirus strains and influenza viruses.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Hmmm, I think I am going to list to the other guy, who has a doctorate in viruses.
majormajor 7y ago
> This hypothesis ("SARS-Cov19 does not confer immunity") falls roughly under the same category as intelligent design: the claim is so exceptional that it's a priori unlikely to be found true, and laypeople are taking normal scientist hedge-speak and exaggerating the meaning in their heads (e.g. "evolution is just a theory"). So call the null hypothesis "there will be some level of immunity." But then you see some people testing positive again, and it's reasonable to want to know why. I didn't see people officials leaping to planning for zombie apocalypse "we're all gonna get it over and over forever" scenarios, I saw people saying we needed to dig deeper. A lot of people in this discussion are refuting a straw man idea that everyone had decided "clearly you get no immunity at all".
- stale2002 7y ago
  > But then you see some people testing positive again, and it's reasonable to want to know why. I have been following the statements of experts ever since this myth made headlines. And despite what the headlines said, the opinions of experts has always been clear. That being that these "reinfections" were the result of dead virus material being detected. So, no it is not reasonable to have ever believed this, if you had listened to the experts.

by timr 7y ago

exolymph 7y ago

> this falls roughly under the same category as intelligent design debate: the claim is so exceptional that it's a priori unlikely to be found true No. As the person you're responding to pointed out: "The viruses that cause colds, many of which are also coronaviruses, are pretty adept at hitting people throughout their life."

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
timr 7y ago
"No. As the person you're responding to pointed out: "The viruses that cause colds, many of which are also coronaviruses, are pretty adept at hitting people throughout their life."" Yes. I'm talking about the question of immunity, not whether or not it's possible to get re-infected by new strains of the same virus, or whether or not immunity fades over time. It would be unlikely that this virus didn't confer at least short-term immunity to the host. The viruses that cause colds primarily re-infect because they mutate at a very high rate. We aren't seeing that with this particular virus.
- f38zf5vdt 7y ago
  One of the currently popular mutants of the virus has a mutation in the proof-reading exonuclease that causes the virus to mutate much more often than the original strain. https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02344-6 https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
  - timr 7y ago
    "that causes the virus to mutate much more often than the original strain." This is not claimed anywhere in the paper you linked to. They show a non-synonymous mutation in RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and hypothesized that it could impact drug resistance.
    - f38zf5vdt 7y ago
      My bad, I was misremembering the paper, which mentions the exonuclease's role in fidelity. I meant RdRps. The conclusion was the same. Figure 4 shows quite clearly that the RdRp mutation is associated with further mutations. > We found that viral strains with RdRp mutation have a median of 3 point mutations [range: 2–5], whereas viral strains with no RdRp mutation have a median of 1 mutation [range: 0–3] (p value < 0.001, Mann–Whitney test). The different distribution between the two groups relative to the number of mutations is statistically significant (Fig. 4).
amyjess 7y ago
Immunity != long-term immunity. You can get temporary immunity that lasts for a year or so and still be able to get reinfected multiple times in your life.
- mr_toad 7y ago
  And there are hundreds of strains and types of viruses that cause colds. Immunity to a rhinovirus serotype will not help with other serotypes of rhinovirus, let alone all the coronavirus strains and influenza viruses.
stale2002 7y ago
Hmmm, I think I am going to list to the other guy, who has a doctorate in viruses.

majormajor 7y ago

> This hypothesis ("SARS-Cov19 does not confer immunity") falls roughly under the same category as intelligent design: the claim is so exceptional that it's a priori unlikely to be found true, and laypeople are taking normal scientist hedge-speak and exaggerating the meaning in their heads (e.g. "evolution is just a theory"). So call the null hypothesis "there will be some level of immunity." But then you see some people testing positive again, and it's reasonable to want to know why. I didn't see people officials leaping to planning for zombie apocalypse "we're all gonna get it over and over forever" scenarios, I saw people saying we needed to dig deeper. A lot of people in this discussion are refuting a straw man idea that everyone had decided "clearly you get no immunity at all".

stale2002 7y ago
> But then you see some people testing positive again, and it's reasonable to want to know why. I have been following the statements of experts ever since this myth made headlines. And despite what the headlines said, the opinions of experts has always been clear. That being that these "reinfections" were the result of dead virus material being detected. So, no it is not reasonable to have ever believed this, if you had listened to the experts.