4 ms·

I know of a few young and healthy people who have ended up in hospital due to COVID and still have longer term lunge damage. This whole “it only affects the eld

I know of a few young and healthy people who have ended up in hospital due to COVID and still have longer term lunge damage. This whole “it only affects the elderly” meme needs to die. They’re just in a greater risk category of death but there are so many variables at play, such as the viral load. And if you’re allowing a virus to run rampant in the hope of gaining herd immunity then there’s a real risk that people will take in larger viral loads. Also, natural immunity is only estimated to last around 2 or 3 months and offers no protection against other strains (some of which appear (statistically speaking) to affect younger folk more severely than the original SARA-CoV-2 strain).

emn13 6y ago
The latest evidence I know of of the new UK variant claims there is no evidence of increased re-infectivity: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948152/Technical_Briefing_VOC202012-2_Briefing_2_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... I've also heard conflicting data on the natural immunity duration - many sources claim at least 3 months of protection, but I can't quickly find any that suggest immunity lasts no more than 3 months. Indirect evidence suggests immunity lasts longer, namely the persistently low re-infection rate - since the first wave is so long ago, you'd assume there was more reinfection by now if immunity lasted just 3 months, right? But maybe I'm reading this wrong; do you have a citation to back this surprising estimate?
- sgt101 6y ago
  I think that this is absence of evidence being taken as evidence of absence. It's pretty hard to bang the table and insist that natural immunity lasts for years when there are no examples of anyone being immune to this for years (yet). I think that professionals would fight shy of asserting this because they are exposing themselves to professional opprobrium (potentially) and they have lots of other things to do now and they are probable concerned that the message will be hijacked to justify not wearing masks/hugging old people/ having big parties/collapsing the healthcare system and killing lots of people. After immunization and when the infection rate goes low again I expect that stronger claims will get made.
  - emn13 6y ago
    At the very least we shouldn't assume that immunity will last for a short period of time. It may be possible since we obviously cannot have the data on long-term immunity yet, but there's no evidence of any significant uptick in reinfection... yet, and for what it's worth, immunity against the previous SARS coronavirus was long-lasting, so some optimism is warranted. Evidence is necessarily lacking, but at least there's no obvious cause for concern yet.
    - laumars 6y ago
      Even just in my lengthy career in IT I’ve learned that it is better to plan for the worst but hope for the best rather than assume the best and then get caught out. And that’s in an industry where people don’t die from my mistakes.
      - emn13 6y ago
        I think that's perhaps an irrelevant or tangential conclusion to draw here. You need to weigh the various options fairly. But from the perspective of mitigating the risks of "worst case" scenarios - which I think is a tricky perspective in the first place, we need to be clear which worst case perspectives are worth mitigating. Vaccine immunity durability is not some kind of primary goal - it's several steps away from one. The risk we should be mitigating is the risk of continued pandemic spread, not the risk of short-lived immunity. That may seem like a pedantic point, but the thing is, it raises one very relevant question: how would our actions be different if we pessimistically assume vaccine-induced immunity only lasts (say) 6-9 months? I'd argue it's likely that this makes very little difference to our actions at this point. At worst it means we'll need to scale vaccine production to a higher level, but even at that higher level the costs are trivial compared to the extra budgets already being spent to save the economy, which are themselves probably small fry compared to the actual economic damage; i.e. even in the "worst case" the costs are eminently doable; the US or EU acting alone could afford to finance vaccinating the entire world, and would even from an entirely selfish perspective probably be well served to do so - and of course, they don't need to, since other countries won't bother waiting for external help. (However, it perhaps does partially help explain Chinese vaccine diplomacy - not only is it truly helpful, it's also in their self-interest both epidemiological, and diplomatically). But extreme pessimism isn't harmless; I think people start taking warnings less seriously when we cry wolf too frequently, and turn out to have been too cautious, i.e. wrong, in retrospect. There's little organizational benefit to assuming vaccine protection is short-lived, and it's a dishonest projection. We should be honest about the fact that we don't know how long immunity lasts, but certainly more than a few months, and potentially much longer; it could last for many years. So sure; we shouldn't unnecessarily accept intolerable risks to society even when those are unlikely (but at least plausible) - but I don't think that's the case here.
dustinmoris 6y ago
> Also, natural immunity is only estimated to last around 2 or 3 months and offers no protection against other strains (some of which appear (statistically speaking) to affect younger folk more severely than the original SARA-CoV-2 strain). This is plain wrong. Natural immunity for SARS-COV-1 was observed even 10 years after infection in some trials. Immunity against other coronaviruses also lasts longer than 2-3 months and actually there is strong indication that natural T-Cell immunity might last people much much longer and be sufficient on its own like it is also with other coronaviruses. The only thing which is estimated to disappear after 3-6 months are antibodies in your bloodstream.
- novaRom 6y ago
  Does longevity of immunity response depends on person's age?
- laumars 6y ago
  Bare in mind other coronaviruses are a guide and not firm proof that our immunity to SARS-CoV-2 would be the same. Plus having an immunity to one coronavirus doesn’t automatically buy you an immunity to another strain of coronavirus. We are already seeing several new strains. Also having COVID-19 doesn’t automatically mean your body even develops an immunity. All sorts of caveats might prevent that from happening such as the infection being too mild to begin with (eg viral load). And lastly, while on the topic of viral load, if your reinfection it too severe then you can still die from a reinfection even if you do have a immunity (immunity gives your body the resistance to fight it, but that doesn’t mean you’re invulnerable to the decease). So while your points are valid, that doesn’t mean anyone who’s caught COVID-19 and recovered should be thinking they’re bullet proof (metaphorically speaking). At best, they could still be carriers. At worst they could still find their body unable to fight off any new infections.
finolex1 6y ago
Most research suggests that the fatality rate for COVID increases exponentially with age. IMO the health risks for people below <50 years alone probably doesn't justify any restrictions. The stronger argument is that younger people are prime vectors for spreading the disease to people who are at greater risk. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259
- laumars 6y ago
  < 50 yr patients in hospital is definitely still a problem when you only have a finite number of beds, ventilators and staff. But I do agree their risk is generally lower.
- mns 6y ago
  In Germany that doesn’t add up. We’ve been in lockdown, the incidence in people under 79 is almost constant since Oct, or even going down. Incidence for 79+ is almost double and rising. We can’t just blame young people all the time, it’s not like the young are all going and having parties in care homes (where a majority of the deaths occur). There has been almost nothing done to protect the elderly, except a full blanket lockdown on the entire country, and while all age categories under 79 are constant or going down, the only one that keeps going up is 79+ (https://corona.stat.uni-muenchen.de/maps/ https://corona.stat.uni-muenchen.de/maps/). The fact that politicians took the easy way, didn’t come up with a single workable solution for schools or care homes, and then after the summer put the blame again on the entire population is quite a failed strategy.

emn13 6y ago

The latest evidence I know of of the new UK variant claims there is no evidence of increased re-infectivity: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948152/Technical_Briefing_VOC202012-2_Briefing_2_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... I've also heard conflicting data on the natural immunity duration - many sources claim at least 3 months of protection, but I can't quickly find any that suggest immunity lasts no more than 3 months. Indirect evidence suggests immunity lasts longer, namely the persistently low re-infection rate - since the first wave is so long ago, you'd assume there was more reinfection by now if immunity lasted just 3 months, right? But maybe I'm reading this wrong; do you have a citation to back this surprising estimate?

sgt101 6y ago
I think that this is absence of evidence being taken as evidence of absence. It's pretty hard to bang the table and insist that natural immunity lasts for years when there are no examples of anyone being immune to this for years (yet). I think that professionals would fight shy of asserting this because they are exposing themselves to professional opprobrium (potentially) and they have lots of other things to do now and they are probable concerned that the message will be hijacked to justify not wearing masks/hugging old people/ having big parties/collapsing the healthcare system and killing lots of people. After immunization and when the infection rate goes low again I expect that stronger claims will get made.
- emn13 6y ago
  At the very least we shouldn't assume that immunity will last for a short period of time. It may be possible since we obviously cannot have the data on long-term immunity yet, but there's no evidence of any significant uptick in reinfection... yet, and for what it's worth, immunity against the previous SARS coronavirus was long-lasting, so some optimism is warranted. Evidence is necessarily lacking, but at least there's no obvious cause for concern yet.
  - laumars 6y ago
    Even just in my lengthy career in IT I’ve learned that it is better to plan for the worst but hope for the best rather than assume the best and then get caught out. And that’s in an industry where people don’t die from my mistakes.
    - emn13 6y ago
      I think that's perhaps an irrelevant or tangential conclusion to draw here. You need to weigh the various options fairly. But from the perspective of mitigating the risks of "worst case" scenarios - which I think is a tricky perspective in the first place, we need to be clear which worst case perspectives are worth mitigating. Vaccine immunity durability is not some kind of primary goal - it's several steps away from one. The risk we should be mitigating is the risk of continued pandemic spread, not the risk of short-lived immunity. That may seem like a pedantic point, but the thing is, it raises one very relevant question: how would our actions be different if we pessimistically assume vaccine-induced immunity only lasts (say) 6-9 months? I'd argue it's likely that this makes very little difference to our actions at this point. At worst it means we'll need to scale vaccine production to a higher level, but even at that higher level the costs are trivial compared to the extra budgets already being spent to save the economy, which are themselves probably small fry compared to the actual economic damage; i.e. even in the "worst case" the costs are eminently doable; the US or EU acting alone could afford to finance vaccinating the entire world, and would even from an entirely selfish perspective probably be well served to do so - and of course, they don't need to, since other countries won't bother waiting for external help. (However, it perhaps does partially help explain Chinese vaccine diplomacy - not only is it truly helpful, it's also in their self-interest both epidemiological, and diplomatically). But extreme pessimism isn't harmless; I think people start taking warnings less seriously when we cry wolf too frequently, and turn out to have been too cautious, i.e. wrong, in retrospect. There's little organizational benefit to assuming vaccine protection is short-lived, and it's a dishonest projection. We should be honest about the fact that we don't know how long immunity lasts, but certainly more than a few months, and potentially much longer; it could last for many years. So sure; we shouldn't unnecessarily accept intolerable risks to society even when those are unlikely (but at least plausible) - but I don't think that's the case here.

dustinmoris 6y ago

> Also, natural immunity is only estimated to last around 2 or 3 months and offers no protection against other strains (some of which appear (statistically speaking) to affect younger folk more severely than the original SARA-CoV-2 strain). This is plain wrong. Natural immunity for SARS-COV-1 was observed even 10 years after infection in some trials. Immunity against other coronaviruses also lasts longer than 2-3 months and actually there is strong indication that natural T-Cell immunity might last people much much longer and be sufficient on its own like it is also with other coronaviruses. The only thing which is estimated to disappear after 3-6 months are antibodies in your bloodstream.

novaRom 6y ago
Does longevity of immunity response depends on person's age?
laumars 6y ago
Bare in mind other coronaviruses are a guide and not firm proof that our immunity to SARS-CoV-2 would be the same. Plus having an immunity to one coronavirus doesn’t automatically buy you an immunity to another strain of coronavirus. We are already seeing several new strains. Also having COVID-19 doesn’t automatically mean your body even develops an immunity. All sorts of caveats might prevent that from happening such as the infection being too mild to begin with (eg viral load). And lastly, while on the topic of viral load, if your reinfection it too severe then you can still die from a reinfection even if you do have a immunity (immunity gives your body the resistance to fight it, but that doesn’t mean you’re invulnerable to the decease). So while your points are valid, that doesn’t mean anyone who’s caught COVID-19 and recovered should be thinking they’re bullet proof (metaphorically speaking). At best, they could still be carriers. At worst they could still find their body unable to fight off any new infections.

finolex1 6y ago

Most research suggests that the fatality rate for COVID increases exponentially with age. IMO the health risks for people below <50 years alone probably doesn't justify any restrictions. The stronger argument is that younger people are prime vectors for spreading the disease to people who are at greater risk. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259

laumars 6y ago
< 50 yr patients in hospital is definitely still a problem when you only have a finite number of beds, ventilators and staff. But I do agree their risk is generally lower.
mns 6y ago
In Germany that doesn’t add up. We’ve been in lockdown, the incidence in people under 79 is almost constant since Oct, or even going down. Incidence for 79+ is almost double and rising. We can’t just blame young people all the time, it’s not like the young are all going and having parties in care homes (where a majority of the deaths occur). There has been almost nothing done to protect the elderly, except a full blanket lockdown on the entire country, and while all age categories under 79 are constant or going down, the only one that keeps going up is 79+ (https://corona.stat.uni-muenchen.de/maps/ https://corona.stat.uni-muenchen.de/maps/). The fact that politicians took the easy way, didn’t come up with a single workable solution for schools or care homes, and then after the summer put the blame again on the entire population is quite a failed strategy.