4 ms·

Fact check: The Theory that SARS-CoV-2 is becoming Milder?

13 points by News-Dog 5y ago

theknocker 5y ago
throwawaysea 5y ago
I would argue it was always mild for most people. The IFR for COVID is very low, which is visible in the CDC’s planning scenarios (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...). For those under 18 it is negligible to the point of being non existent. For those under 50 the IFR is 0.05%. Studies have also shown that the majority of those with severe COVID symptoms are unhealthy in some way (obese, vitamin D deficiency, or immune compromised). COVID is really only noteworthy if you’re 50 and above or otherwise unhealthy. To come back to this article, it is interesting that they admit we have less to worry about because of growing natural immunity (from exposure to the virus). Many people suggested natural immunity was effective, particularly political moderates and conservatives who felt individual choice matters and that mandates (like vaccine mandates) violate basic civil liberties. But they were ridiculed and belittled as conspiracy theorists, despite the obvious logic behind their suggestion. Now time has proven them correct, as with other strange claims from COVID political theater (for example the changing story about the effectiveness of different masks).
- JPKab 5y ago
  I feel you completely on the natural immunity part. As someone who contracted the original variant less than 2 months before I was eligible for the vaccine, I've dealt with a lot of harassment for simply citing vastly superior studies with sample sizes of millions of human beings out of Israel and Qatar that clearly indicate that natural immunity is very robust, although not ideal for senior citizens who should absolutely be boosted. As a person who was deeply influenced by reading catch-22 as a high schooler, it's been shocking to see people who share my political values line up to worship at the feet of massive bureaucracies of the powerful. Recently the fixation on piously taking the viruses seriously as possible in very performative ways has reminded me of the loyalty oath and catch 22: “Every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed. They signed a loyalty oath to get their pay from the finance officer, to obtain their PX supplies, to have their hair cut…” In this case, the loyalty oath is rigorously getting tested as soon as you feel a sniffle and getting boosted over and over and over again, despite most of these people being young and healthy. I recently had an encounter with a woman who was arguing rather aggressively with me because she found out that I don't support mandating the vaccine for people. As the conversation went on, I discovered that unlike me she refuses to get annual flu shots because she had a family member get very ill from one at least from the family's point of view. I pointed out the blatant hypocrisy here and she refused to engage in any further discussion. They're all hypocrites who want to force their current opinion about things on others, not recognizing that the same mechanism will one day be used against their own unpopular decisions.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    I agree. I am vaccinated and boosted and take lots of precautions voluntarily, but when I tell people that I don’t support mandatory vaccines (or coercion by threatening employment) or lockdowns, I get shocked reactions and uncritical responses. Part of it is that there is a current political trend, particularly on the progressive/far-left, towards statism. Censorship, bans, mandates, and purity tests are increasingly common and not just in the government but private institutions as well. I get the feeling that many who support authoritarian responses to COVID favor statist controls and view these incremental changes as bolstering the legitimacy or normalization of that type of governance. The thing is, classically liberal societies are designed to accommodate disagreements and diversity of views among its people. We are all allowed, fundamentally, to perceive things differently and to value things differently. The system works when it makes room for that hyperlocal individual choice so this diversity of views can coexist. But when increasing amounts of statism result in a narrow political majority abusing their power against the rest (whether from the right or left), I think society is headed towards unrest and failure.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Buttons840 5y ago
  > Studies have also shown that the majority of those with severe COVID symptoms are unhealthy in some way (obese, vitamin D deficiency, or immune compromised) So you're saying that only a majority of the people can have severe COVID symptoms? In America, I expect more than half the people fall into those 3 categories you mentioned. I'm not saying you're overall point is wrong, only that I find this particular point that "only the majority will be effected" not especially compelling.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    If the majority of the american population is either obese, vitamin D deficient or immunocompromised, COVID is not the problem here.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    In the US it is about 42% obesity and 42% VDD. Obesity also causes VDD (apart from bad diets, environment, lifestyles) so there’s overlap. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/
  - peteradio 5y ago
    An 85 yr old man getting in his car and driving through the night to make love to his girlfriend is not the same as a 24 yr old man doing the same. What happened to any degree of self-separation in our otherwise obviously age segregated society?
JPKab 5y ago
- rsfern 5y ago
  Do you have a substantive critique about the actual article? I found it pretty reasonable and detailed, and consistent with what I’ve been reading elsewhere. And there’s even a dedicated section pushing back on the doom and gloom attitude Also, they have detailed discussion included with three different scientists, one of whom is an author of one of the important recent studies on how omicron infects our cells
  - JPKab 5y ago
    You're right. The article was relatively reasonable. I think I was fixated on how much it conflicts with the primary, and very aggressive, narrative push of NPR over the last 18 months. For example, this section: "Just as the virus is changing and evolving, so is your immune system. At the population level, immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is growing rapidly in the United States. More than half of the U.S. population has likely been infected. After the omicron surge, that percentage could rise above 80% or 90%. And more than 60% of people are vaccinated. Both of those types of exposures to SARS-CoV-2 will reduce a person's risk of severe disease in future surges, many studies have found. "Whether you've been previously infected or vaccinated, you're more likely to have a milder course than a person who is immune naive," Goldstein says." Just a few months ago, NPR and other mainstream media outlets were extremely aggressive in attacking anyone claiming that previous infection had similar effects as vaccination. Not because they disagreed with the actual substance of this argument (although many of the journalists did) but because of their obsession with the second-order effects of the public being informed about it. Instead of being concerned with informing the public, I would argue they are far more concerned with steering the public's behavior. They have a very narcissistic belief that they are an enlightened class who needs to shape the beliefs of the general public, who lack the Ivy League credentials, and therefore intelligence, that they uniquely possess. Over the course of the disease, time has proven every one of these publications wrong. They attacked Sweden's pandemic strategy with a coordinated and aggressive campaign. They pointed to higher numbers whenever Sweden had them, then quickly ignored every bit of good news when it arose. There is currently zero discussion in mainstream media about Sweden doing far better than other large European nations which contain global hubs. (Comparing Sweden to Finland is like comparing Colorado to Nebraska, yes they are neighbors, but population density and lack of large cities change the entire conversation). The same thing happened in the US with Florida. If Florida had a spike that New York didn't have, it was front-page news. The minute a state with a governor the media liked had higher numbers than Florida, the reporting disappeared. I trusted the media's narrative until May 2020, when in the course of 72 hours, aggressive attacks on people partying at the Lake of the Ozarks in outdoor settings without masks were replaced by open support of people protesting in the streets without masks. As if the virus cares about the motivation or virtue of the hosts. I lost all trust in these institutions at that very moment, and will never forget it. They are jobs programs for political activists, and that coverage proved it. They are more concerned about how they look to their yuppie friends at the next dinner party than they are with reporting actual truth.

13 points by News-Dog 5y ago

I would argue it was always mild for most people. The IFR for COVID is very low, which is visible in the CDC’s planning scenarios (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...). For those under 18 it is negligible to the point of being non existent. For those under 50 the IFR is 0.05%. Studies have also shown that the majority of those with severe COVID symptoms are unhealthy in some way (obese, vitamin D deficiency, or immune compromised). COVID is really only noteworthy if you’re 50 and above or otherwise unhealthy. To come back to this article, it is interesting that they admit we have less to worry about because of growing natural immunity (from exposure to the virus). Many people suggested natural immunity was effective, particularly political moderates and conservatives who felt individual choice matters and that mandates (like vaccine mandates) violate basic civil liberties. But they were ridiculed and belittled as conspiracy theorists, despite the obvious logic behind their suggestion. Now time has proven them correct, as with other strange claims from COVID political theater (for example the changing story about the effectiveness of different masks).

JPKab 5y ago
I feel you completely on the natural immunity part. As someone who contracted the original variant less than 2 months before I was eligible for the vaccine, I've dealt with a lot of harassment for simply citing vastly superior studies with sample sizes of millions of human beings out of Israel and Qatar that clearly indicate that natural immunity is very robust, although not ideal for senior citizens who should absolutely be boosted. As a person who was deeply influenced by reading catch-22 as a high schooler, it's been shocking to see people who share my political values line up to worship at the feet of massive bureaucracies of the powerful. Recently the fixation on piously taking the viruses seriously as possible in very performative ways has reminded me of the loyalty oath and catch 22: “Every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed. They signed a loyalty oath to get their pay from the finance officer, to obtain their PX supplies, to have their hair cut…” In this case, the loyalty oath is rigorously getting tested as soon as you feel a sniffle and getting boosted over and over and over again, despite most of these people being young and healthy. I recently had an encounter with a woman who was arguing rather aggressively with me because she found out that I don't support mandating the vaccine for people. As the conversation went on, I discovered that unlike me she refuses to get annual flu shots because she had a family member get very ill from one at least from the family's point of view. I pointed out the blatant hypocrisy here and she refused to engage in any further discussion. They're all hypocrites who want to force their current opinion about things on others, not recognizing that the same mechanism will one day be used against their own unpopular decisions.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I agree. I am vaccinated and boosted and take lots of precautions voluntarily, but when I tell people that I don’t support mandatory vaccines (or coercion by threatening employment) or lockdowns, I get shocked reactions and uncritical responses. Part of it is that there is a current political trend, particularly on the progressive/far-left, towards statism. Censorship, bans, mandates, and purity tests are increasingly common and not just in the government but private institutions as well. I get the feeling that many who support authoritarian responses to COVID favor statist controls and view these incremental changes as bolstering the legitimacy or normalization of that type of governance. The thing is, classically liberal societies are designed to accommodate disagreements and diversity of views among its people. We are all allowed, fundamentally, to perceive things differently and to value things differently. The system works when it makes room for that hyperlocal individual choice so this diversity of views can coexist. But when increasing amounts of statism result in a narrow political majority abusing their power against the rest (whether from the right or left), I think society is headed towards unrest and failure.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Buttons840 5y ago
> Studies have also shown that the majority of those with severe COVID symptoms are unhealthy in some way (obese, vitamin D deficiency, or immune compromised) So you're saying that only a majority of the people can have severe COVID symptoms? In America, I expect more than half the people fall into those 3 categories you mentioned. I'm not saying you're overall point is wrong, only that I find this particular point that "only the majority will be effected" not especially compelling.
- Zababa 5y ago
  If the majority of the american population is either obese, vitamin D deficient or immunocompromised, COVID is not the problem here.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  In the US it is about 42% obesity and 42% VDD. Obesity also causes VDD (apart from bad diets, environment, lifestyles) so there’s overlap. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/
- peteradio 5y ago
  An 85 yr old man getting in his car and driving through the night to make love to his girlfriend is not the same as a 24 yr old man doing the same. What happened to any degree of self-separation in our otherwise obviously age segregated society?

JPKab 5y ago

rsfern 5y ago
Do you have a substantive critique about the actual article? I found it pretty reasonable and detailed, and consistent with what I’ve been reading elsewhere. And there’s even a dedicated section pushing back on the doom and gloom attitude Also, they have detailed discussion included with three different scientists, one of whom is an author of one of the important recent studies on how omicron infects our cells
- JPKab 5y ago
  You're right. The article was relatively reasonable. I think I was fixated on how much it conflicts with the primary, and very aggressive, narrative push of NPR over the last 18 months. For example, this section: "Just as the virus is changing and evolving, so is your immune system. At the population level, immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is growing rapidly in the United States. More than half of the U.S. population has likely been infected. After the omicron surge, that percentage could rise above 80% or 90%. And more than 60% of people are vaccinated. Both of those types of exposures to SARS-CoV-2 will reduce a person's risk of severe disease in future surges, many studies have found. "Whether you've been previously infected or vaccinated, you're more likely to have a milder course than a person who is immune naive," Goldstein says." Just a few months ago, NPR and other mainstream media outlets were extremely aggressive in attacking anyone claiming that previous infection had similar effects as vaccination. Not because they disagreed with the actual substance of this argument (although many of the journalists did) but because of their obsession with the second-order effects of the public being informed about it. Instead of being concerned with informing the public, I would argue they are far more concerned with steering the public's behavior. They have a very narcissistic belief that they are an enlightened class who needs to shape the beliefs of the general public, who lack the Ivy League credentials, and therefore intelligence, that they uniquely possess. Over the course of the disease, time has proven every one of these publications wrong. They attacked Sweden's pandemic strategy with a coordinated and aggressive campaign. They pointed to higher numbers whenever Sweden had them, then quickly ignored every bit of good news when it arose. There is currently zero discussion in mainstream media about Sweden doing far better than other large European nations which contain global hubs. (Comparing Sweden to Finland is like comparing Colorado to Nebraska, yes they are neighbors, but population density and lack of large cities change the entire conversation). The same thing happened in the US with Florida. If Florida had a spike that New York didn't have, it was front-page news. The minute a state with a governor the media liked had higher numbers than Florida, the reporting disappeared. I trusted the media's narrative until May 2020, when in the course of 72 hours, aggressive attacks on people partying at the Lake of the Ozarks in outdoor settings without masks were replaced by open support of people protesting in the streets without masks. As if the virus cares about the motivation or virtue of the hosts. I lost all trust in these institutions at that very moment, and will never forget it. They are jobs programs for political activists, and that coverage proved it. They are more concerned about how they look to their yuppie friends at the next dinner party than they are with reporting actual truth.