3 ms·

It's not being ignored. It's long been a valid legal "immunity indicator" here in the UK where this is published. I don't know what end game is being sought he

It's not being ignored. It's long been a valid legal "immunity indicator" here in the UK where this is published. I don't know what end game is being sought here tbh, given that England has abolished all legal restrictions, the rest of the UK likely will do in the next few weeks, and nobody is even talking about mandatory vaccines any more. Overall this feels like something of an agenda piece, not an entirely science based piece, which is trying to build consensus round something really quite ill defined...

Arnt 5y ago
It is being suppressed to some degree in my experience, and I think that's because it's so easily misunderstood. "Do not lead people's attention towards that which they can easily misunderstand" is a good principle. The crucial misunderstandable point is that even if the immunity is fine, acquiring this immunity is bad (the acquisition process involves considerable risk of death and long covid). That's subtle, too subtle for many people.
- brianmcc 5y ago
  Yeah I suppose it comes down to what people are expected to actually do with the information. It's one thing to have a message "if you get covid, and come out OK, the silver lining is some ongoing immunity". I'm not sure there's any other take: "get covid to avoid getting covid" doesn't really work. Finally I imagine there's a bit of ongoing analysis, the science on antibodies and other immune responses vs actual real world protection perhaps not concluded. Not least due to the future emergence of new variants which could substantially change things for either the better or for the worse.
- native_samples 5y ago
  COVID does not present a "considerable risk of death" for any age group even before Omicron, and now it's so trivial that when the Queen (aged 95) got it, the entire UK just shrugged and ignored it. The real reason governments like to ignore infection acquired immunity is that it's incompatible with prevailing ideology in public health and the "science as saviour" narrative. It's certainly got nothing to do with what people can understand. My god no. The average member of the public is far smarter and less biased than the average public health official!

Arnt 5y ago

It is being suppressed to some degree in my experience, and I think that's because it's so easily misunderstood. "Do not lead people's attention towards that which they can easily misunderstand" is a good principle. The crucial misunderstandable point is that even if the immunity is fine, acquiring this immunity is bad (the acquisition process involves considerable risk of death and long covid). That's subtle, too subtle for many people.

brianmcc 5y ago
Yeah I suppose it comes down to what people are expected to actually do with the information. It's one thing to have a message "if you get covid, and come out OK, the silver lining is some ongoing immunity". I'm not sure there's any other take: "get covid to avoid getting covid" doesn't really work. Finally I imagine there's a bit of ongoing analysis, the science on antibodies and other immune responses vs actual real world protection perhaps not concluded. Not least due to the future emergence of new variants which could substantially change things for either the better or for the worse.
native_samples 5y ago
COVID does not present a "considerable risk of death" for any age group even before Omicron, and now it's so trivial that when the Queen (aged 95) got it, the entire UK just shrugged and ignored it. The real reason governments like to ignore infection acquired immunity is that it's incompatible with prevailing ideology in public health and the "science as saviour" narrative. It's certainly got nothing to do with what people can understand. My god no. The average member of the public is far smarter and less biased than the average public health official!