3 ms·

yes, we knew in march 2020 what the outlines of this virus were going to be. the only uncertainty was how much it varied at the margins (like absolute transmiss

yes, we knew in march 2020 what the outlines of this virus were going to be. the only uncertainty was how much it varied at the margins (like absolute transmissibility, reproduction rate, in vitro resilience, etc.), but we realized quickly that it didn't push those boundaries in any surprising ways. it was simply a novel coronavirus, which meant that deficient immune systems were going to be unprepared to fight it. we knew this already, and still proceeded to become hysterical over this one virus, rather than focusing on protecting the immune deficient specifically.

timr 5y ago
> it was simply a novel coronavirus Unfortunately, the use of the word "novel" (which has a specific meaning in the scientific context: it was a new strain) was commonly twisted to interpretations like the GP comment. People heard "novel", assumed the colloquial usage ("totally new!") and leapt to the conclusion that we knew nothing about it. For example, for too long, people were speculating on HN and elsewhere that humans "might not have immunity" to this virus (even though "a virus that doesn't induce immunity" would be perhaps the most extraordinary development in the history of immunology). This was a claim easily debunked, but instead was repeated by some extremely high profile "experts" across the media. This was a case study in poor scientific communication to the general public, made worse by the fact that the authorities seemed to lean into it, instead of calming the panic. Certain "medical experts", when confronted with uncertainty and doubt, didn't emphasize the things we do know, and instead retreated back to their standard mode of equivocating about any direct question. Meanwhile, a less-ethical group, seeing an obvious opportunity to advance their flagging careers, wildly exaggerated their claims. It was a perfect storm, and to this day, the general public has a complete misunderstanding of the virus and the risks posed by it.

timr 5y ago

> it was simply a novel coronavirus Unfortunately, the use of the word "novel" (which has a specific meaning in the scientific context: it was a new strain) was commonly twisted to interpretations like the GP comment. People heard "novel", assumed the colloquial usage ("totally new!") and leapt to the conclusion that we knew nothing about it. For example, for too long, people were speculating on HN and elsewhere that humans "might not have immunity" to this virus (even though "a virus that doesn't induce immunity" would be perhaps the most extraordinary development in the history of immunology). This was a claim easily debunked, but instead was repeated by some extremely high profile "experts" across the media. This was a case study in poor scientific communication to the general public, made worse by the fact that the authorities seemed to lean into it, instead of calming the panic. Certain "medical experts", when confronted with uncertainty and doubt, didn't emphasize the things we do know, and instead retreated back to their standard mode of equivocating about any direct question. Meanwhile, a less-ethical group, seeing an obvious opportunity to advance their flagging careers, wildly exaggerated their claims. It was a perfect storm, and to this day, the general public has a complete misunderstanding of the virus and the risks posed by it.