4 ms·

> as far as we know immunity to any of them is immunity to all of them. What are you basing that on, when there are known cases of people getting coronavirus a

by kbd 6y ago

> as far as we know immunity to any of them is immunity to all of them. What are you basing that on, when there are known cases of people getting coronavirus and then still contracting the other strain of it?

mulmen 6y ago
Do you know the reinfection was a different strain? Or did the immunity to the first strain weaken?
- bipson 6y ago
  Maybe there is a slight semantic misunderstanding here, but in fact a "re-infection" is defined as such: A patient must present a infection and the particular virus must be sequenced, and then present with an infection later on where the virus is again sequenced and identified as sufficiently different from the first sample. Otherwise it cannot be deemed a re-infection. If these small differences in the genomic sequence are already a different strand, I don't know, not an expert. But all 5 (?) cases known so far had a different sequence identified the second time.
- kbd 6y ago
  https://www.ajmc.com/view/first-case-of-covid-19-reinfection-detected-in-the-us https://www.ajmc.com/view/first-case-of-covid-19-reinfection... > The genomes of the patient’s virus samples from April and June displayed significant genetic differences between them, suggesting that the patient was infected twice by 2 distinct COVID-19 infections. I’d read of known second infections that are from different strains, but scientists also question lasting immunity from COVID-19 infection because other coronaviruses are seasonal.
  - marketingPro 6y ago
    This seriously enrages me. We knew coronavirus was going to last years and could mutate. Why did people claim lockdowns were the "Science" solution? I was censored here for pointing out the 3 options. In reality soft lockdowns seemed to be the only wrong answer. Harsh lockdowns and no lockdowns actually provide a benefit.
    - bipson 6y ago
      Assuming you are really interested. Mostly because the world is not one-dimensional. "Hard lockdown" has drastic socio-economic implications. "No lockdown" has dramatic/catastrophic socio-economic implications. The easiest to understand: In very short time the ICUs are overrun and people die. A lot of people die. "Soft lockdown" depends on the people to play along. Which seems more difficult than the people in charge thought it would be (and some still don't believe). Notably I am not arguing here for what the "right" choice is. It is simply not that easy.
      - marketingPro 6y ago
        Don't use words like "a lot". Is "a lot" 1% or 80%. Hard lockdown causes 100% to suffer, but we save the 1%. A soft lockdown causes the 100 to suffer, and we only save "flatten the curve" lives. Which according to NYT ventilator stats saves 12% of people. 1% times 12% is 0.12%. No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. As a note coronavirus is 4x more deadly than the yearly flu and kills the same demographic. Are we overreacting on a virus that is on the same order of magnitude as a flu?
        kube-system 6y ago
        With no intervention, healthy people start to die because they cannot receive medical care. There is a lot of COVID care going on in hospitals other than ventilation. Ventilators are somewhat of a last resort. We are on track for COVID to have 10x the deaths of the seasonal flu, and that is after the effects of the significant interventions that have happened here and around the globe.
        airstrike 6y ago
        > No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. This is incorrect. When hospitals are overrun, healthy people can't be treated and die. The old and obese die in higher proportions even when receiving treatment, but healthy young people often need treatment to survive.
  - barumi 6y ago
    My take is that this is a "correlation does not imply causality" case. It was possible to positively identify a reinfection because the two infections were due to different strains. That was just the means of positively and objectively identify a reinfection. However, nothing was asserted regarding if the patient was immune to the first strain the first time around. In fact, it seems that the hallmark of reinfections is that they are far more critical than first infections. This also means that the first infections is far milder than the second one. Well, the thing about the immune system is that it is able to fight mild infections without developing immunity if they are too mild to trigger a full response from the immune system.

by kbd 6y ago

mulmen 6y ago

Do you know the reinfection was a different strain? Or did the immunity to the first strain weaken?

bipson 6y ago
Maybe there is a slight semantic misunderstanding here, but in fact a "re-infection" is defined as such: A patient must present a infection and the particular virus must be sequenced, and then present with an infection later on where the virus is again sequenced and identified as sufficiently different from the first sample. Otherwise it cannot be deemed a re-infection. If these small differences in the genomic sequence are already a different strand, I don't know, not an expert. But all 5 (?) cases known so far had a different sequence identified the second time.
kbd 6y ago
https://www.ajmc.com/view/first-case-of-covid-19-reinfection-detected-in-the-us https://www.ajmc.com/view/first-case-of-covid-19-reinfection... > The genomes of the patient’s virus samples from April and June displayed significant genetic differences between them, suggesting that the patient was infected twice by 2 distinct COVID-19 infections. I’d read of known second infections that are from different strains, but scientists also question lasting immunity from COVID-19 infection because other coronaviruses are seasonal.
- marketingPro 6y ago
  This seriously enrages me. We knew coronavirus was going to last years and could mutate. Why did people claim lockdowns were the "Science" solution? I was censored here for pointing out the 3 options. In reality soft lockdowns seemed to be the only wrong answer. Harsh lockdowns and no lockdowns actually provide a benefit.
  - bipson 6y ago
    Assuming you are really interested. Mostly because the world is not one-dimensional. "Hard lockdown" has drastic socio-economic implications. "No lockdown" has dramatic/catastrophic socio-economic implications. The easiest to understand: In very short time the ICUs are overrun and people die. A lot of people die. "Soft lockdown" depends on the people to play along. Which seems more difficult than the people in charge thought it would be (and some still don't believe). Notably I am not arguing here for what the "right" choice is. It is simply not that easy.
    - marketingPro 6y ago
      Don't use words like "a lot". Is "a lot" 1% or 80%. Hard lockdown causes 100% to suffer, but we save the 1%. A soft lockdown causes the 100 to suffer, and we only save "flatten the curve" lives. Which according to NYT ventilator stats saves 12% of people. 1% times 12% is 0.12%. No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. As a note coronavirus is 4x more deadly than the yearly flu and kills the same demographic. Are we overreacting on a virus that is on the same order of magnitude as a flu?
      - kube-system 6y ago
        With no intervention, healthy people start to die because they cannot receive medical care. There is a lot of COVID care going on in hospitals other than ventilation. Ventilators are somewhat of a last resort. We are on track for COVID to have 10x the deaths of the seasonal flu, and that is after the effects of the significant interventions that have happened here and around the globe.
      - airstrike 6y ago
        > No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. This is incorrect. When hospitals are overrun, healthy people can't be treated and die. The old and obese die in higher proportions even when receiving treatment, but healthy young people often need treatment to survive.
- barumi 6y ago
  My take is that this is a "correlation does not imply causality" case. It was possible to positively identify a reinfection because the two infections were due to different strains. That was just the means of positively and objectively identify a reinfection. However, nothing was asserted regarding if the patient was immune to the first strain the first time around. In fact, it seems that the hallmark of reinfections is that they are far more critical than first infections. This also means that the first infections is far milder than the second one. Well, the thing about the immune system is that it is able to fight mild infections without developing immunity if they are too mild to trigger a full response from the immune system.