7 ms·

>People that contracted SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20 years later. Could you provide a source for this please?

by daenz 5y ago

jandrewrogers 5y ago
There are several such studies, all trivially discoverable. Here is one published in Nature last year, where they specifically also studied cross reactivity of SARS-2003 immune response with SARS-2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z Asking for a citation for something so trivially discoverable is a weird flex.
- dsjoerg 5y ago
  Meh, I dunno. My first lazy Google search didn't give me that result on the top. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immunity+after+coronavirus https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immunit... Citations are cool!
- jessriedel 5y ago
  The discussion is improved by having sources for key claims linked directly here. I'm glad the question was asked, especially since it was done so politely.
  - jandrewrogers 5y ago
    I worked on COVID epidemiology last year for a couple governments, so I am more familiar with the literature than most people. I don’t expect people to be as familiar as I am. However, the bane of my existence the last year have been people with strong opinions on “the science” on both sides that use “citation please” as a passive aggressive dismissal from a position of ignorance, and will promptly ignore any citations offered. The Internet is rife with it, and I generally avoid these kinds of discussions. That may not have been the OP’s intent but I was admittedly playing the overwhelming odds. People that genuinely want to know these things can easily find and access most of the primary sources (some government research is non-public). That’s the best source for all information on COVID, the media has done a terrible job representing it. I didn’t have the above citation ready, I googled it and it came up right near the top.
    - mbostleman 5y ago
      Assume benign intent.
    - StavrosK 5y ago
      It's probably easy for someone who knows what to look for, but I wouldn't even know where to start googling.
      - MAGZine 5y ago
        i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. Nature is a reputable publication. I think this boils down to internet folks assuming their conversational partner has the same level of knowledge they do, don't believe the other party, and then ask for proof, rather than educate themselves. The citation was trivial to produce. "Citation needed," and it's cousins should be reserved for things that aren't easy to find. This is just embarrassing.
        StavrosK 5y ago
        > i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. I don't know why you think that's obvious. In fact, I wouldn't have expected that query to yield anything relevant, so I wouldn't have even thought to try it. That's what "knows what to search for" means, it doesn't strictly mean "coming up with obscure jargon keywords".
        cycomanic 5y ago
        I have to agree with the previous poster, quite often citation needed is being used as a passive aggressive form of "countering" an argument (I have to admit to having used it myself). And if, like in this case, the study (which was what the poster claimed existed) comes up as one of the first results in a google search, I find "citation needed" either to be disingenuous or lazy. Just as a test I searched for "SARS-COV-1 immunity" and got quite a few relevant references as first results as well (even though not the exact study mentioned above). This is HN, so I think we can expect people know how to search google.
- joemi 5y ago
  It's not trivially discoverable if you don't know the best terminology to search for.
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
    The question was about "SARS-CoV-1". I went to Google and typed SARS-CoV-1. Since I wanted to know about immunity I typed the letters "imm" and the first suggestion was "SARS-CoV-1 immunity duration". I clicked these and was immediately shown link to studies showing the very long duration. This is trivially discoverable. Claiming that finding this information was not trivial appear dinhonest to me.
    - rriepe 5y ago
      Most people don't look for information. They just wait to be told it.
- anonytrary 5y ago
  Ridiculing someone for asking for a source for something you think is "trivial" is also a weird flex.
  - postalrat 5y ago
    I expect so much more when other people are doing unpaid research for me!
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
    Go to Google and search for "SARS-CoV-1 immunity". Is this not trivial?
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      The beginning of the thread where a citation was asked for and given is interesting. This continuing discussion on the matter is a tedious digression whichever side you are on.
      - tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
        Now you're part of the continuing discussion as well. Welcome!
      - anonytrary 5y ago
        Yeah that's my fault for making that quip. I am sorry it is getting upvoted, I forgot that humor isn't required here. @dang, can you please detach my comment and all the replies? Sorry about that.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  A claim referencing unspecified sources on the internet is essentially unfalsifiable. How does anyone debunk such a claim? Do a Google search and start on page 1?
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
    If someone claim X and you are not familiar with the subject, why is your reaction "How do I debunk this claim?" rather than "How do I learn more about this?".
  - shalmanese 5y ago
    You could ask more politely by showing you did the bare minimum of independent research before asking for a citation. 'That's an interesting assertion but I couldn't find anything backing it up searching for "SARS immunity 20 years" or "long lasting SARS immunity", do you have a cite I could read?' Even showing you've put in even the teensiest bit of effort makes people much more charitable about helping you.
    - Buttons840 5y ago
      I Googled "SARS immunity 20 years" and the first result is a research paper abstract[1] stating "SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure". How much effort do I spend assessing whether I believe this research paper? It's probably not what the OP had in mind since it conflicts with what they were saying. Do I make arguments from this paper (either for or against the OP's claim)? Again, it's probably not even what they were referring too. I know just asking for a source is low effort, but it often seems like the best starting point. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

>People that contracted SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20 years later. Could you provide a source for this please?

by daenz 5y ago

>People that contracted SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20 years later. Could you provide a source for this please?

jandrewrogers 5y ago

There are several such studies, all trivially discoverable. Here is one published in Nature last year, where they specifically also studied cross reactivity of SARS-2003 immune response with SARS-2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z Asking for a citation for something so trivially discoverable is a weird flex.

dsjoerg 5y ago
Meh, I dunno. My first lazy Google search didn't give me that result on the top. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immunity+after+coronavirus https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immunit... Citations are cool!
jessriedel 5y ago
The discussion is improved by having sources for key claims linked directly here. I'm glad the question was asked, especially since it was done so politely.
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  I worked on COVID epidemiology last year for a couple governments, so I am more familiar with the literature than most people. I don’t expect people to be as familiar as I am. However, the bane of my existence the last year have been people with strong opinions on “the science” on both sides that use “citation please” as a passive aggressive dismissal from a position of ignorance, and will promptly ignore any citations offered. The Internet is rife with it, and I generally avoid these kinds of discussions. That may not have been the OP’s intent but I was admittedly playing the overwhelming odds. People that genuinely want to know these things can easily find and access most of the primary sources (some government research is non-public). That’s the best source for all information on COVID, the media has done a terrible job representing it. I didn’t have the above citation ready, I googled it and it came up right near the top.
  - mbostleman 5y ago
    Assume benign intent.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    It's probably easy for someone who knows what to look for, but I wouldn't even know where to start googling.
    - MAGZine 5y ago
      i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. Nature is a reputable publication. I think this boils down to internet folks assuming their conversational partner has the same level of knowledge they do, don't believe the other party, and then ask for proof, rather than educate themselves. The citation was trivial to produce. "Citation needed," and it's cousins should be reserved for things that aren't easy to find. This is just embarrassing.
      - StavrosK 5y ago
        > i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. I don't know why you think that's obvious. In fact, I wouldn't have expected that query to yield anything relevant, so I wouldn't have even thought to try it. That's what "knows what to search for" means, it doesn't strictly mean "coming up with obscure jargon keywords".
        cycomanic 5y ago
        I have to agree with the previous poster, quite often citation needed is being used as a passive aggressive form of "countering" an argument (I have to admit to having used it myself). And if, like in this case, the study (which was what the poster claimed existed) comes up as one of the first results in a google search, I find "citation needed" either to be disingenuous or lazy. Just as a test I searched for "SARS-COV-1 immunity" and got quite a few relevant references as first results as well (even though not the exact study mentioned above). This is HN, so I think we can expect people know how to search google.
joemi 5y ago
It's not trivially discoverable if you don't know the best terminology to search for.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
  The question was about "SARS-CoV-1". I went to Google and typed SARS-CoV-1. Since I wanted to know about immunity I typed the letters "imm" and the first suggestion was "SARS-CoV-1 immunity duration". I clicked these and was immediately shown link to studies showing the very long duration. This is trivially discoverable. Claiming that finding this information was not trivial appear dinhonest to me.
  - rriepe 5y ago
    Most people don't look for information. They just wait to be told it.
anonytrary 5y ago
Ridiculing someone for asking for a source for something you think is "trivial" is also a weird flex.
- postalrat 5y ago
  I expect so much more when other people are doing unpaid research for me!
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
  Go to Google and search for "SARS-CoV-1 immunity". Is this not trivial?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    The beginning of the thread where a citation was asked for and given is interesting. This continuing discussion on the matter is a tedious digression whichever side you are on.
    - tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
      Now you're part of the continuing discussion as well. Welcome!
    - anonytrary 5y ago
      Yeah that's my fault for making that quip. I am sorry it is getting upvoted, I forgot that humor isn't required here. @dang, can you please detach my comment and all the replies? Sorry about that.
Buttons840 5y ago
A claim referencing unspecified sources on the internet is essentially unfalsifiable. How does anyone debunk such a claim? Do a Google search and start on page 1?
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
  If someone claim X and you are not familiar with the subject, why is your reaction "How do I debunk this claim?" rather than "How do I learn more about this?".
- shalmanese 5y ago
  You could ask more politely by showing you did the bare minimum of independent research before asking for a citation. 'That's an interesting assertion but I couldn't find anything backing it up searching for "SARS immunity 20 years" or "long lasting SARS immunity", do you have a cite I could read?' Even showing you've put in even the teensiest bit of effort makes people much more charitable about helping you.
  - Buttons840 5y ago
    I Googled "SARS immunity 20 years" and the first result is a research paper abstract[1] stating "SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure". How much effort do I spend assessing whether I believe this research paper? It's probably not what the OP had in mind since it conflicts with what they were saying. Do I make arguments from this paper (either for or against the OP's claim)? Again, it's probably not even what they were referring too. I know just asking for a source is low effort, but it often seems like the best starting point. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]