3 ms·

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

by 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.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Well it goes both ways, we can neither assume long term immunity nor lack of long term immunity. But it's not even a binary: the most likely outcome (by far I think) is that strong immunity of the quality that keeps you even from becoming a symptom-less spreader for a few days won't be lasting, but infection will never again be as dangerous as it was the first time (or would have been the first time, without a vaccine). The immune system is a memory hierarchy.

by emn13 6y ago

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.
usrusr 6y ago
Well it goes both ways, we can neither assume long term immunity nor lack of long term immunity. But it's not even a binary: the most likely outcome (by far I think) is that strong immunity of the quality that keeps you even from becoming a symptom-less spreader for a few days won't be lasting, but infection will never again be as dangerous as it was the first time (or would have been the first time, without a vaccine). The immune system is a memory hierarchy.