3 ms·
This article summarizes a large amount of research and analysis. *Edit: Please cite the particular claims you are flagging this for, so others (including me as
by briefcomment 6y ago
This article summarizes a large amount of research and analysis.
*Edit: Please cite the particular claims you are flagging this for, so others (including me as a lay reader) can try to address them.
For kevingadd, I think that claim comes from the statement below, drawn from this study [1].
"Scientists are now showing evidence that up to 81% of us can mount a strong response to COVID-19 without ever having been exposed to it before"
[1] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1
For jschwartzi, yes, that claim is theorizing, but so is any other claim on HIT. This study qualifies that figure to an extent[2].
[2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v...
- kevingadd 6y ago"70% of people are likely naturally immune" is an incredibly wild claim I haven't seen anyone make before and it's not even a hyperlink to a source. The article clearly is based on some sources but it's really unclear to me what claims are sourced from where despite the fact that it's making very strong claims.
- jschwartzi 6y agoHe also talks about the HIT being "as low as" 19%. In other words, he doesn't know but he's theorizing that's the case. What if it isn't?