4 ms·

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120322142157.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120322142157.h...

lultimouomo 6y ago
The hygiene hypothesis is about infection in the development age preventing the insurgence of allergic and autoimmune diseases; it does not say in any way that being infected with a virus protects you from an unrelated, worse virus.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  True but cowpox vs smallpox is a trivial counterexample but it certainly isn't complete protection given the many strands of the common cold and flu. To make a complete hash out of the actual details of biology for the sake of explanation we could say that cowpox shared the same immune signature as smallpox while being less deadly resulting in any smallpox infection attempt being nipped in the bud by the immune system. In that case the question is "Would there be more deadly alias viruses counterparts out there and how does the relative risk profile out?" There is also a matter of niche and the fact we would strongly prefer that mostly harmless ones fill the niche rather than deadly ones but we still sterilize instruments because we rationally don't want to take the chance that our "harmless" microbes might mutate to something more deadly on us, let alone the location dependent danger like ecoli in the digestive tract is fine but not in your bloodstream.
- ebg13 6y ago
  It's also not known to be correct. https://theconversation.com/early-exposure-to-infections-doesnt-protect-against-allergies-but-getting-into-nature-might-126603 https://theconversation.com/early-exposure-to-infections-doe... Current researchers advise to avoid the phrase "hygiene hypothesis" entirely, because it's misleading, and the most recent formulations are not that we need more early exposure to bad things but that we need more early exposure to good things.
- ynfnehf 6y ago
  It might, however, protect against infection by a related, worse virus. As well as it often being safer to be infected earlier in life than later on (which requires a fair amount of spread along children). There is a related hygiene hypothesis for polio, but luckily we don't have to deal with that anymore. On the whole, eradicating the flu and colds would probably (in my opinion) be a net positive, but you have to be a bit careful with these things.
  - lultimouomo 6y ago
    > It might, however, protect against infection by a related, worse virus. It might, but it's not what the linked article is about.

lultimouomo 6y ago

The hygiene hypothesis is about infection in the development age preventing the insurgence of allergic and autoimmune diseases; it does not say in any way that being infected with a virus protects you from an unrelated, worse virus.

Nasrudith 6y ago
True but cowpox vs smallpox is a trivial counterexample but it certainly isn't complete protection given the many strands of the common cold and flu. To make a complete hash out of the actual details of biology for the sake of explanation we could say that cowpox shared the same immune signature as smallpox while being less deadly resulting in any smallpox infection attempt being nipped in the bud by the immune system. In that case the question is "Would there be more deadly alias viruses counterparts out there and how does the relative risk profile out?" There is also a matter of niche and the fact we would strongly prefer that mostly harmless ones fill the niche rather than deadly ones but we still sterilize instruments because we rationally don't want to take the chance that our "harmless" microbes might mutate to something more deadly on us, let alone the location dependent danger like ecoli in the digestive tract is fine but not in your bloodstream.
ebg13 6y ago
It's also not known to be correct. https://theconversation.com/early-exposure-to-infections-doesnt-protect-against-allergies-but-getting-into-nature-might-126603 https://theconversation.com/early-exposure-to-infections-doe... Current researchers advise to avoid the phrase "hygiene hypothesis" entirely, because it's misleading, and the most recent formulations are not that we need more early exposure to bad things but that we need more early exposure to good things.
ynfnehf 6y ago
It might, however, protect against infection by a related, worse virus. As well as it often being safer to be infected earlier in life than later on (which requires a fair amount of spread along children). There is a related hygiene hypothesis for polio, but luckily we don't have to deal with that anymore. On the whole, eradicating the flu and colds would probably (in my opinion) be a net positive, but you have to be a bit careful with these things.
- lultimouomo 6y ago
  > It might, however, protect against infection by a related, worse virus. It might, but it's not what the linked article is about.