3 ms·

The entire debate about natural immunity was shut down. No, you need the vaccine, was the argument for a long time. It was also ignored in mandates in many coun

The entire debate about natural immunity was shut down. No, you need the vaccine, was the argument for a long time. It was also ignored in mandates in many countries. The entire basis of this is that T-cell immunity is ignored, and only sky high antibodies caused by the vaccine offer any protection for future infection.

kenjackson 5y ago
Can you point me to an article in NEJM or Nature (or another respected publication) that said any of this?
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  It wasn't in the journals. It was in the media and in discussions with others. PS: The fact it is hard to talk find sources is because it was all shut down.
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    You do realize the media can say whatever they want? MSNBC can go one way and Fox News can go the other way. Their audiences don't shut down the other...
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      > You do realize the media can say whatever they want? Ultimately all of what these "experts" say is distilled by people in the media and shared through twitter, HN, reddit, FB and more. During this madness, all the biggest doomsday people in my circle of "real" humans would feed me reams of NYT and Atlantic articles as their "sources". If I fed them some academic article that goes against the media narrative they'd dismiss it as "not peer reviewed" or "publishers were doing a flawed study". Ironic considering almost all of their sources had all the same major flaws as whatever I provided.
- EricE 5y ago
  Where were the amount of articles that were proportionally talking about it? Familiar with the term lie of omission?
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    It's hard to get proportionality w/o spending a lot of time getting data. But the simplest Google search and you can find Nature articles talking about T-cell response with respect to Covid: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00436-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00436-4 If you aren't aware of these discussions it's not because of lies of omission, gas lighting, or a vast conspiracy theory. It's because you buried your own head and then said someone is holding your head down.
- bigodbiel 5y ago
  https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101/rr-0 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101/rr-0
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    First, that was simply an editorial piece. But more importantly they "assert" natural immunity is being ignored by scientific journals, but provide no evidence. Even worse, they then go on to cite studies from prestigious scientific journals that discuss natural immunity! What is it, are they ignoring it or are they publishing well cited papers on it? Lastly, they conflate science with policy. As they even note, the scientific community has long known that there is some immunity with surviving infection. But policy has to take more than that into account.

kenjackson 5y ago

Can you point me to an article in NEJM or Nature (or another respected publication) that said any of this?

spookthesunset 5y ago
It wasn't in the journals. It was in the media and in discussions with others. PS: The fact it is hard to talk find sources is because it was all shut down.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  You do realize the media can say whatever they want? MSNBC can go one way and Fox News can go the other way. Their audiences don't shut down the other...
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    > You do realize the media can say whatever they want? Ultimately all of what these "experts" say is distilled by people in the media and shared through twitter, HN, reddit, FB and more. During this madness, all the biggest doomsday people in my circle of "real" humans would feed me reams of NYT and Atlantic articles as their "sources". If I fed them some academic article that goes against the media narrative they'd dismiss it as "not peer reviewed" or "publishers were doing a flawed study". Ironic considering almost all of their sources had all the same major flaws as whatever I provided.
EricE 5y ago
Where were the amount of articles that were proportionally talking about it? Familiar with the term lie of omission?
- kenjackson 5y ago
  It's hard to get proportionality w/o spending a lot of time getting data. But the simplest Google search and you can find Nature articles talking about T-cell response with respect to Covid: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00436-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00436-4 If you aren't aware of these discussions it's not because of lies of omission, gas lighting, or a vast conspiracy theory. It's because you buried your own head and then said someone is holding your head down.
bigodbiel 5y ago
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101/rr-0 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101/rr-0
- kenjackson 5y ago
  First, that was simply an editorial piece. But more importantly they "assert" natural immunity is being ignored by scientific journals, but provide no evidence. Even worse, they then go on to cite studies from prestigious scientific journals that discuss natural immunity! What is it, are they ignoring it or are they publishing well cited papers on it? Lastly, they conflate science with policy. As they even note, the scientific community has long known that there is some immunity with surviving infection. But policy has to take more than that into account.