5 ms·
Towards the end of the article is a particularly good nugget of information. > Since then, there have been documented reports of individuals being reinfected w
by bostik 6y ago
Towards the end of the article is a particularly good nugget of information.
> Since then, there have been documented reports of individuals being reinfected with different versions of the virus.
Yes, reinfections have been extremely rare so far. But if the immunity really is strain-specific, the warnings about Covid becoming endemic in the global population should now carry a lot more weight. The virus will mutate. In a likely scenario, previous immunisations are likely to be less useful, and we all need annual shots against the newly emerging strains.
On the upside, if Covid strains become just another aspect of the flu jab, then we at least already have an existing infrastructure to manage it in the future. Production capacity of vaccines will take some time to ramp up, though. Maybe now would be a good time to invest in drug manufacturing and logistics?
Planet Money did an episode on Covid vaccine logistics and one data point stuck with me. The global production of vaccines is between 3.5B and 5B doses a year. That's for ALL vaccines, across the entire spectrum of diseases and treatments. Adding another 12B to 16B doses on top of that is going to require a lot of new infrastructure, from production facilities to all the materials needed in the logistics chain.
- chimprich 6y ago> > Since then, there have been documented reports of individuals being reinfected with different versions of the virus. > [...] But if the immunity really is strain-specific Reinfections have been recorded from different strains because it's much easier to demonstrate that someone has been reinfected with a new strain. If someone has been reinfected with the same strain then it is hard to distinguish that from an infection that wasn't fully cleared originally. It doesn't necessarily mean that immunity is strain-specific. (I don't know why you were downvoted; your comment seems reasonable to me!)
- dontTango 6y agoPeople are really enjoying WFH and don't want it to end. It's important to keep the fear strong. Meanwhile, I am baffled we didn't prioritize n95(or kn95) masks. Well... It's government, I'm not that baffled A significantly more rational policy would have been to prioritize masks with filters and for the less than 1/12 of elderly people who live with younger generations, move them into a hotel room and pay for food delivery and care services. All of this is cheaper and healthier than what was done.
- Tainnor 6y ago1. Risk groups are not just old people, but also include a lot of people (e.g. asthmatics) that are a central part of the work force. Not all of these can WFH, they might be working in supermarkets, etc. 2. Some people don't even know they are at risk especially when they are young. 3. You can't fully isolate old people anyway. That's why we continue to see infections in hospitals, nursing homes, etc. 4. Even if you managed to isolate all risk groups, the spread of covid19 without any restrictive measures would be extremely rapid. While only a small fraction of the rest of the population would become severely ill, a tiny fraction of a large population can still be huge and might be enough to overwhelm hospitals. If it were as easy as you suggested, surely it would have been tried - at least somewhere on the planet.
- com2kid 6y ago> Meanwhile, I am baffled we didn't prioritize n95(or kn95) masks. Well... It's government, I'm not that baffled They did. Production is up 5x. But factories take time to build. Entire new types of filters have actually been invented this year, going forward humanity is going to have a lot more choices when it comes to high quality filtering masks.