6 ms·

Having, as you suggested, skipped just to the TL;DR, this bit jumped out at me as something that we very much don't know is true, and that it's dangerous to ass

by JadeNB 7y ago

Having, as you suggested, skipped just to the TL;DR, this bit jumped out at me as something that we very much don't know is true, and that it's dangerous to assume is true without proof: > Once you get sick, you can’t get sick again for a long time. Eventually you might be able to get sick again, but it will not be very bad. When enough people have gotten sick and then gotten better, the sickness can’t spread any more. (Incidentally, at one point you leave out the 'z' from "hospitalization".)

mrfusion 7y ago
That’s a popular point with the talking heads on the media but I’d encourage you to read up on it. Best estimates look like 1-4 years of immunity [1] 1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30985-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- JadeNB 7y ago
  I hadn't seen the Lancet article—I was getting my latest information from the Quanta article also on the front page (https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-other-coronaviruses-tell-us-about-sars-cov-2-20200429)—and https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-other-coronaviruses-... I guess it's a matter of language and personal preference, but "this global pandemic will be in abeyance for a year or so" doesn't match my informal understanding of "a long time". I also believe, as sibling postpawl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23025675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23025675) points out, that there is still at least a divergence of opinions here, and that it is dangerous to get it wrong. (Personally, while I think voicing unpopular opinions is definitely a role we need in society, it seems to me that dismissing widely accepted opinions as due just to "talking heads on the media" puts disputants in an adversarial position that makes it more likely for people to hunker down in their existing opinions, and less likely for anyone's mind to change. Your refutation would have been more, not less, convincing to me if it had just pointed to the Lancet article.)
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    You make a good point. Sorry about my reply. I’m so used to getting downvoted these days I’m trying out different writing styles. (Maybe this one is a fail)
    - JadeNB 7y ago
      > Sorry about my reply. I’m so used to getting downvoted these days I’m trying out different writing styles. (Maybe this one is a fail) No worries; I also missed that you're not the original author. COVID + policy is a perfect storm of temper-stoking conversational topics.
postpawl 7y ago
“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.” From WHO a few days ago: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...
- ryankemper 7y ago
  This statement was the source of widespread criticism and I in fact criticized it myself in the writeup. I considered going for a deeper debunking but held off for the initial draft. I might circle back if people feel it's valuable. Let me take a quick stab though: When we talk about immunity we need to realize the term is used imprecisely by laypeople (btw I'm totally a layman if it's not already clear). I think of it simplistically as two components: (1) The presence of actively circulating antibodies in the bloodstream. This is what the (oddly controversial) serology studies are measuring. It is thought that having a significant quantity of these antibodies prevents infection - i.e., what most people envision when they talk about immunity. (2) Even after the antibodies have faded, there are still Memory B Cells, which lay dormant up to decades, waiting for exposure to the characteristic antigen (in this case, an antigen telling them that they have encountered SARS-CoV-2), at which point they resume and rapidly scale up production of antibodies. The thinking here is that reinfection is likely possible after a sufficient length of time - whether that's a couple months or a couple years isn't yet known - but when you do get infected, your immune system will respond sooner, more strongly, and thus you will achieve a far lower peak viral load meaning a less serious infection with reduced transmisibility. This is a robust mechanism that we see across tons of disease, including common cold coronaviruses. In my completely uncredentialed opinion, this effect is so common and well-supported that we should essentially assume it happens until we really have proof that it doesn't. I know that might sound backwards, but it really is such an enduring mechanism. -- Here's another argument you might prefer. We know that at least hundreds of thousands of people have successfully recovered from COVID-19. Loosely, we can divide the immune system into the "non-specific" and the "adaptive" subsystems. Given that we have seen extensive recovery from this illness and that those who have recovered have detectable levels of antibodies, and furthermore that there is a case of a women who could not manufacture antibodies due to a rare auto-immune disorder who failed to recover, it stands to reason that the same mechanism that provides medium-term immunity is the mechanism responsible for recovery. That is to say, that it's very farfetched to think that people are recovering purely from non-specific immune responses and that the detectable presence of circulating antibodies is just a red herring. But I suppose you could try arguing that if you wished.
ryankemper 7y ago
https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/9071eebf0964a164c62332cfaa945b8993b480e4 https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/9071eebf0964... Typo fixed! I think I've found at least 15 typos total now. Oops...

by JadeNB 7y ago

mrfusion 7y ago

That’s a popular point with the talking heads on the media but I’d encourage you to read up on it. Best estimates look like 1-4 years of immunity [1] 1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30985-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

JadeNB 7y ago
I hadn't seen the Lancet article—I was getting my latest information from the Quanta article also on the front page (https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-other-coronaviruses-tell-us-about-sars-cov-2-20200429)—and https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-other-coronaviruses-... I guess it's a matter of language and personal preference, but "this global pandemic will be in abeyance for a year or so" doesn't match my informal understanding of "a long time". I also believe, as sibling postpawl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23025675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23025675) points out, that there is still at least a divergence of opinions here, and that it is dangerous to get it wrong. (Personally, while I think voicing unpopular opinions is definitely a role we need in society, it seems to me that dismissing widely accepted opinions as due just to "talking heads on the media" puts disputants in an adversarial position that makes it more likely for people to hunker down in their existing opinions, and less likely for anyone's mind to change. Your refutation would have been more, not less, convincing to me if it had just pointed to the Lancet article.)
- mrfusion 7y ago
  You make a good point. Sorry about my reply. I’m so used to getting downvoted these days I’m trying out different writing styles. (Maybe this one is a fail)
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > Sorry about my reply. I’m so used to getting downvoted these days I’m trying out different writing styles. (Maybe this one is a fail) No worries; I also missed that you're not the original author. COVID + policy is a perfect storm of temper-stoking conversational topics.

postpawl 7y ago

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.” From WHO a few days ago: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...

ryankemper 7y ago
This statement was the source of widespread criticism and I in fact criticized it myself in the writeup. I considered going for a deeper debunking but held off for the initial draft. I might circle back if people feel it's valuable. Let me take a quick stab though: When we talk about immunity we need to realize the term is used imprecisely by laypeople (btw I'm totally a layman if it's not already clear). I think of it simplistically as two components: (1) The presence of actively circulating antibodies in the bloodstream. This is what the (oddly controversial) serology studies are measuring. It is thought that having a significant quantity of these antibodies prevents infection - i.e., what most people envision when they talk about immunity. (2) Even after the antibodies have faded, there are still Memory B Cells, which lay dormant up to decades, waiting for exposure to the characteristic antigen (in this case, an antigen telling them that they have encountered SARS-CoV-2), at which point they resume and rapidly scale up production of antibodies. The thinking here is that reinfection is likely possible after a sufficient length of time - whether that's a couple months or a couple years isn't yet known - but when you do get infected, your immune system will respond sooner, more strongly, and thus you will achieve a far lower peak viral load meaning a less serious infection with reduced transmisibility. This is a robust mechanism that we see across tons of disease, including common cold coronaviruses. In my completely uncredentialed opinion, this effect is so common and well-supported that we should essentially assume it happens until we really have proof that it doesn't. I know that might sound backwards, but it really is such an enduring mechanism. -- Here's another argument you might prefer. We know that at least hundreds of thousands of people have successfully recovered from COVID-19. Loosely, we can divide the immune system into the "non-specific" and the "adaptive" subsystems. Given that we have seen extensive recovery from this illness and that those who have recovered have detectable levels of antibodies, and furthermore that there is a case of a women who could not manufacture antibodies due to a rare auto-immune disorder who failed to recover, it stands to reason that the same mechanism that provides medium-term immunity is the mechanism responsible for recovery. That is to say, that it's very farfetched to think that people are recovering purely from non-specific immune responses and that the detectable presence of circulating antibodies is just a red herring. But I suppose you could try arguing that if you wished.

ryankemper 7y ago

https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/9071eebf0964a164c62332cfaa945b8993b480e4 https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/9071eebf0964... Typo fixed! I think I've found at least 15 typos total now. Oops...