5 ms·

I agree that flattening the curve should have benefitted society and saved lives. Regarding chickenpox, it becomes more and more dangerous the later in life yo

I agree that flattening the curve should have benefitted society and saved lives. Regarding chickenpox, it becomes more and more dangerous the later in life you catch it. Getting it as a 5yo is annoying. Getting it at 15 can be quite a bit more dangerous. getting it for the first time at 40 can be lethal.

cassianoleal 5y ago
I see what you mean. How does that work out in reality though? There are always people in all those age groups in society and if you let the disease run amok, that just means the 40yo of now are more likely to catch it before there's a vaccine or better treatments, doesn't it? OTOH if you slow down the kids getting it, they will be less likely to spread it to the teens and middle-aged kids :D until those are available. i.e. pretty much the same, is it not? Disclaimer: I'm pulling those ideas out of my arse, I have no real data or knowlege to back my thoughts.
- abakker 5y ago
  When I was kid, before the chickenpox vaccine, it was common practice to ensure your kids got it by intentionally exposing them. I guess our parents had all had it, so there was no risk of getting it again. Now we have a vaccine so I assume this doesn't happen anymore.
  - cassianoleal 5y ago
    Ah interesting. I didn't know that, but it does make sense. > I guess our parents had all had it, so there was no risk of getting it again. This is not the case with COVID though. Everyone is getting infected for the first time, and we're still unsure how long and how strong immunity-through-exposure is. In fact, there are multiple reports of people catching it multiple times (I know of a person who had it 5 times :-o ).
    - nradov 5y ago
      There is no serious doubt that most infections produce durable cellular immunity, just as with all similar viruses. Of course patients will occasionally be reinfected, but symptoms are typically less severe. With any disease that has infected billions of people there will be occasional statistical outliers. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/ https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
      - LorenPechtel 5y ago
        Statistical outliers?? Sorry, but not too long ago I ran into a figure that 2/3 of Omicron cases had previously been infected with another variant. Covid is mutating fast enough that prior infection provides only limited protection. If you're lucky your body locks onto the spike protein and the protection works pretty well against all pre-Omicron variants. But you're not guaranteed that, your body might go for a much less stable target and do little against a variant. We are seeing this with the Chinese vaccines. They're killed-virus vaccines, they worked well at first. Not anymore.
        nradov 5y ago
        That is misinformation. Did you even listen to the above linked explanation by infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi? Reinfections are meaningless. What matters is severity of symptoms. Infection by earlier variants gives most recovered patients durable cellular immunity against Omicron. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01700-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01700-x
        amluto 5y ago
        I have not seen any evidence that this form of immunity is responsible for a reduction of severity of a reinfection. I didn’t listen to the podcast, but I did read the notes, and I thought “wow, Omicron is no big deal! The data is great! Let me click those links!” Then I clicked the links and they didn’t seem amazing. Apparently previous infection reduces severity, and Omicron is less severe, but neither of these effects is anywhere near as strong as the show notes made them out to be.

cassianoleal 5y ago

I see what you mean. How does that work out in reality though? There are always people in all those age groups in society and if you let the disease run amok, that just means the 40yo of now are more likely to catch it before there's a vaccine or better treatments, doesn't it? OTOH if you slow down the kids getting it, they will be less likely to spread it to the teens and middle-aged kids :D until those are available. i.e. pretty much the same, is it not? Disclaimer: I'm pulling those ideas out of my arse, I have no real data or knowlege to back my thoughts.

abakker 5y ago
When I was kid, before the chickenpox vaccine, it was common practice to ensure your kids got it by intentionally exposing them. I guess our parents had all had it, so there was no risk of getting it again. Now we have a vaccine so I assume this doesn't happen anymore.
- cassianoleal 5y ago
  Ah interesting. I didn't know that, but it does make sense. > I guess our parents had all had it, so there was no risk of getting it again. This is not the case with COVID though. Everyone is getting infected for the first time, and we're still unsure how long and how strong immunity-through-exposure is. In fact, there are multiple reports of people catching it multiple times (I know of a person who had it 5 times :-o ).
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is no serious doubt that most infections produce durable cellular immunity, just as with all similar viruses. Of course patients will occasionally be reinfected, but symptoms are typically less severe. With any disease that has infected billions of people there will be occasional statistical outliers. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/ https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      Statistical outliers?? Sorry, but not too long ago I ran into a figure that 2/3 of Omicron cases had previously been infected with another variant. Covid is mutating fast enough that prior infection provides only limited protection. If you're lucky your body locks onto the spike protein and the protection works pretty well against all pre-Omicron variants. But you're not guaranteed that, your body might go for a much less stable target and do little against a variant. We are seeing this with the Chinese vaccines. They're killed-virus vaccines, they worked well at first. Not anymore.
      - nradov 5y ago
        That is misinformation. Did you even listen to the above linked explanation by infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi? Reinfections are meaningless. What matters is severity of symptoms. Infection by earlier variants gives most recovered patients durable cellular immunity against Omicron. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01700-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01700-x
        amluto 5y ago
        I have not seen any evidence that this form of immunity is responsible for a reduction of severity of a reinfection. I didn’t listen to the podcast, but I did read the notes, and I thought “wow, Omicron is no big deal! The data is great! Let me click those links!” Then I clicked the links and they didn’t seem amazing. Apparently previous infection reduces severity, and Omicron is less severe, but neither of these effects is anywhere near as strong as the show notes made them out to be.