4 ms·

Personal anecdote: My wife and I got COVID very early in 2020 (she’s a health care worker and picked it up at work) and we both had a very mild illness, only on

Personal anecdote: My wife and I got COVID very early in 2020 (she’s a health care worker and picked it up at work) and we both had a very mild illness, only one week of flu symptoms then back to normal ourselves. 11 months later a family member got ill and we both were in close contact for hours with that person as we admitted them to hospital for a check up and were in a tiny unventilated room for hours. That person had high fever and a coughed the entire time and we were up in their face because that person needs care with drinking and so on. Long story short, we both expected to get ill again but it didn’t happen. Not a tiny bit. Clearly we had an amazingly strong immune response to the virus still almost an entire year later, contradictory to what most news outlets tried to make us believe. EDIT: People who downvote my real life experience are literally just poor tiny internet trolls who feel offended by other people’s positive experiences. I haven’t said anything which isn’t mentioned in the article itself, just confirmed that my personal experience makes me believe that it’s quite plausible. Clearly some people feel offended by just life itself. LOL to those losers.

gameswithgo 5y ago
news outlets until very recently were selectively quoting worst case scenarios very consistently. it made many members of my family anxious and some friends thought it would never end. dozens of times i would repeat that most likely the immunity would be lasting and would protect against variants but i think the whole time they thought i was an idiot to be contradicting actual experts. but i wasn’t, these were the worst case scenarios that could be found among experts. not likely scenarios.
- rimliu 5y ago
  Not only news outlets. Anywhere you'd see some positive news there would inevitably be comments about long covid and what not.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    Without any evidence matching their claims, of course.
- throwkeep 5y ago
  People have been so scared by the news, they are still wearing masks outside (where it doesn't spread) and even when vaccinated!
  - bserge 5y ago
    Eh, I'll be doing that. They're useful for more than Covid. I hate getting a cold or the flu (especially in a workplace where people are forced to come in, even sick), but a mask somehow makes you look insane/paranoid or sick yourself. I hope they'll become more acceptable.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I wear masks outside, because sometimes I encounter a bus stop where the entire volume of the bus exits exactly where and when I happen to be walking. Also, a mask, like wearing trousers, is a trivial cost. I still will wear one after being vaccinated, because I expect the effects to be multipliers: 80% protection from a vaccine and 90% from a mask is 1-(1-0.8)(1-0.9) = 98% protection.
  - ipsum2 5y ago
    There's nothing magic about the outside that prevents COVID from spreading. If someone with COVID happens to cough in your face while you walk past them on the sidewalk, you have a good chance of getting it.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      Where do you live that people cough in your face?
    - drstewart 5y ago
      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/please-go-outside-dr-bonnie-henry-says-covid-19-much-less-likely-to-spread-outdoors-1.5550191 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/please-go-ou... >The chance of catching COVID-19 from someone coughing as they walk past you in a park is "infinitesimally small," B.C.'s provincial health officer said Wednesday. Do you wear a helmet outside? There's nothing that prevents a brick from falling on your head while walking past buildings. You have a good chance of dying. Better to be safe than sorry.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jayd16 5y ago
  >quoting worst case scenarios Why is this treated like a conspiracy and not simply the obvious thing to do? The only thing that can be reported _with certainty_ is the worst case scenario so obviously the media is going to use cover-my-ass style wording. It doesn't really take a genius to realize the media is aiming for the least wrong, not the most right.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Our jurisdiction had a 'science table' that would publish optimistic and worst-case modelling. The media ignored the former. Omitting less scary news doesn't improve correctness.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    The media is aiming for the most clicks.
  - drstewart 5y ago
    >It doesn't really take a genius to realize the media is aiming for the least wrong, not the most right. Is that really what you think they're aiming for?
cameldrv 5y ago
It's a good anecdote, but we have some data on this now, and from a neutralization standpoint, a prior infection is about 75-80% protective against reinfection. Very good, but not quite as good as the mRNA vaccines. As for spending time in a room with the person with the high fever and coughing, it sounds like they were probably past their peak viral shedding. This usually happens the day before symptom onset or the very first day of any COVID symptoms. This is why COVID has been so difficult to contain, because by the time someone has had enough time to even notice symptoms and then go get tested, they've already shed most of the virus particles that they're going to. If they then have to wait a couple of days for a test result and don't isolate in the meantime, a positive test that late only makes a marginal difference in reducing transmission.
- mulvya 5y ago
  Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... (Pfizer vaccine) SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(2100141-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Be careful with your second study, because they looked at those that developed/still had antibodies post-infection. Kinda like saying those that developed a good immune response developed a good immune response. But not everyone develops long-lasting antibodies and not everyone keeps those levels high. In this study, 8-30% didn't develop/lost antibody positivity (depending on which test method used): https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article In this study, 28% of those with documented infection had their antibodies go below the level of positivity over time: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm
jsnell 5y ago
The negative reaction is unlikely to be to your personal anecdote, but to the "contradictory to what most news outlets tried to make us believe" dig.
albertop 5y ago
It is worse than that. Your story is not statically relevant, but it is in line with the OP so it is relevant and interesting. However they cannot stomach anything that contradicts their new religion. I like you LOL attitude towards those losers.
breck 5y ago
This is not surprising. We have a huge amount of data that the reinfection rate is very low (1 in 1,000): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v...

gameswithgo 5y ago

news outlets until very recently were selectively quoting worst case scenarios very consistently. it made many members of my family anxious and some friends thought it would never end. dozens of times i would repeat that most likely the immunity would be lasting and would protect against variants but i think the whole time they thought i was an idiot to be contradicting actual experts. but i wasn’t, these were the worst case scenarios that could be found among experts. not likely scenarios.

rimliu 5y ago
Not only news outlets. Anywhere you'd see some positive news there would inevitably be comments about long covid and what not.
- anoncake 5y ago
  Without any evidence matching their claims, of course.
throwkeep 5y ago
People have been so scared by the news, they are still wearing masks outside (where it doesn't spread) and even when vaccinated!
- bserge 5y ago
  Eh, I'll be doing that. They're useful for more than Covid. I hate getting a cold or the flu (especially in a workplace where people are forced to come in, even sick), but a mask somehow makes you look insane/paranoid or sick yourself. I hope they'll become more acceptable.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I wear masks outside, because sometimes I encounter a bus stop where the entire volume of the bus exits exactly where and when I happen to be walking. Also, a mask, like wearing trousers, is a trivial cost. I still will wear one after being vaccinated, because I expect the effects to be multipliers: 80% protection from a vaccine and 90% from a mask is 1-(1-0.8)(1-0.9) = 98% protection.
- ipsum2 5y ago
  There's nothing magic about the outside that prevents COVID from spreading. If someone with COVID happens to cough in your face while you walk past them on the sidewalk, you have a good chance of getting it.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    Where do you live that people cough in your face?
  - drstewart 5y ago
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/please-go-outside-dr-bonnie-henry-says-covid-19-much-less-likely-to-spread-outdoors-1.5550191 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/please-go-ou... >The chance of catching COVID-19 from someone coughing as they walk past you in a park is "infinitesimally small," B.C.'s provincial health officer said Wednesday. Do you wear a helmet outside? There's nothing that prevents a brick from falling on your head while walking past buildings. You have a good chance of dying. Better to be safe than sorry.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jayd16 5y ago
>quoting worst case scenarios Why is this treated like a conspiracy and not simply the obvious thing to do? The only thing that can be reported _with certainty_ is the worst case scenario so obviously the media is going to use cover-my-ass style wording. It doesn't really take a genius to realize the media is aiming for the least wrong, not the most right.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Our jurisdiction had a 'science table' that would publish optimistic and worst-case modelling. The media ignored the former. Omitting less scary news doesn't improve correctness.
- anoncake 5y ago
  The media is aiming for the most clicks.
- drstewart 5y ago
  >It doesn't really take a genius to realize the media is aiming for the least wrong, not the most right. Is that really what you think they're aiming for?

cameldrv 5y ago

It's a good anecdote, but we have some data on this now, and from a neutralization standpoint, a prior infection is about 75-80% protective against reinfection. Very good, but not quite as good as the mRNA vaccines. As for spending time in a room with the person with the high fever and coughing, it sounds like they were probably past their peak viral shedding. This usually happens the day before symptom onset or the very first day of any COVID symptoms. This is why COVID has been so difficult to contain, because by the time someone has had enough time to even notice symptoms and then go get tested, they've already shed most of the virus particles that they're going to. If they then have to wait a couple of days for a test result and don't isolate in the meantime, a positive test that late only makes a marginal difference in reducing transmission.

mulvya 5y ago
Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... (Pfizer vaccine) SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(2100141-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Be careful with your second study, because they looked at those that developed/still had antibodies post-infection. Kinda like saying those that developed a good immune response developed a good immune response. But not everyone develops long-lasting antibodies and not everyone keeps those levels high. In this study, 8-30% didn't develop/lost antibody positivity (depending on which test method used): https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article In this study, 28% of those with documented infection had their antibodies go below the level of positivity over time: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm

jsnell 5y ago

The negative reaction is unlikely to be to your personal anecdote, but to the "contradictory to what most news outlets tried to make us believe" dig.

albertop 5y ago

It is worse than that. Your story is not statically relevant, but it is in line with the OP so it is relevant and interesting. However they cannot stomach anything that contradicts their new religion. I like you LOL attitude towards those losers.

breck 5y ago

This is not surprising. We have a huge amount of data that the reinfection rate is very low (1 in 1,000): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v...