5 ms·

What's odd is how many people ignored, denied or actively resisted the idea of natural infection conferring immunity.

cm2187 4y ago
And at the same time supported severe covid restrictions until a vaccine is available. The paradox of course is that the likelihood of there being an efficient vaccine is very low if you don’t develop immunity naturally.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  > the likelihood of there being an efficient vaccine is very low if you don’t develop immunity naturally where did you read this?
  - cm2187 4y ago
    The way traditional vaccines work is by injecting an attenuated virus and letting the natural immunity do the rest. If natural immunity doesn’t work on the original virus, it is unlikely it will work on the attenuated virus.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      what does that have to do with the restrictions? the logical corollary to your statement seems to be, if the body IS capable of natural immunity, then it is likely that it will work on the attenuated virus (provided it's not too attenuated, maybe)
ryanobjc 4y ago
That isn't it at all, the question isn't "does natural immunity happen", but "what's the overall population cost of natural immunity". Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point. Just saying "let 'er rip, go natural immunity" isn't the responsible move. Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.
- timr 4y ago
  > Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point. "Long covid" is not defined. There is no test. There is no objective signature. Literally anyone can claim that they have it, and not be wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm telling you that we have no idea how prevalent "it" is, and we don't have any idea how "it" compares to the consequences of other common respiratory illnesses. We've simply never bothered to look, and uncontrolled studies where someone enumerates a long list of things that happened after Covid, in a large group of people, are not evidence of those things being caused by Covid. Said differently: if you have a nearly ubiquitous illness, how can you say anything about causality regarding anything that follows? So what we have here is a pile of questionable research, a large group of people who are scared and demanding that action be taken, and politicians who are more than willing to "take action" by pushing aside, censoring, and otherwise bullying the scientists who stand in the way of their actions.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    >I'm not saying it doesn't exist okay, well, others with relevant qualifications are saying it DOES exist, so since nobody seems to be saying it doesn't, I guess we can go with their expert conclusions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - origin_path 4y ago
      The point of the article is that people with relevant qualifications are saying things like that, whilst also saying in private "this is wrong but I just need to get to retirement". Pretty much anything public health people say on the topic of COVID turns out to be wrong on close inspection. It's really astounding. Even very basic things like getting an actual clinical definition of COVID itself (let alone long COVID) turns out to be impossible, which is why the official definition governments use is "got a positive on a COVID test". That's not actually a disease symptom but COVID isn't defined by symptoms any more than long COVID is. The reason this happens is that public health is an authoritarian collectivist concept - the government will make decisions for the collective good even if individuals must suffer as a consequence. The entire culture of that space is dominated by a mindset that says, "we will obtain compliance by making scientific sounding claims, because people respect science and will follow it". That's why COVID research is so full of conflicting and nonsensical claims.
camgunz 4y ago
It's more like while you're obtaining "natural immunity", you're shedding virus that infects others. Similarly with masks, they weakly protect you from others, they strongly protect others from you. I feel like everywhere I look in the anti-COVID-vax community, no one reckons with the fact that their position gets others sick, and those people might die. Even this article focuses strongly on children not needing masks or vaccines, mentioning not at all kids getting others sick. Some cites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721405/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721405/ https://hms.harvard.edu/news/children-spread-covid-19 https://hms.harvard.edu/news/children-spread-covid-19 https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-sheds-light-roles-children-and-asymptomatic-infections-covid-19-household https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-sheds-light-roles-ch... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156154/

And at the same time supported severe covid restrictions until a vaccine is available. The paradox of course is that the likelihood of there being an efficient vaccine is very low if you don’t develop immunity naturally.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
> the likelihood of there being an efficient vaccine is very low if you don’t develop immunity naturally where did you read this?
- cm2187 4y ago
  The way traditional vaccines work is by injecting an attenuated virus and letting the natural immunity do the rest. If natural immunity doesn’t work on the original virus, it is unlikely it will work on the attenuated virus.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    what does that have to do with the restrictions? the logical corollary to your statement seems to be, if the body IS capable of natural immunity, then it is likely that it will work on the attenuated virus (provided it's not too attenuated, maybe)

ryanobjc 4y ago

That isn't it at all, the question isn't "does natural immunity happen", but "what's the overall population cost of natural immunity". Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point. Just saying "let 'er rip, go natural immunity" isn't the responsible move. Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.

timr 4y ago
> Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point. "Long covid" is not defined. There is no test. There is no objective signature. Literally anyone can claim that they have it, and not be wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm telling you that we have no idea how prevalent "it" is, and we don't have any idea how "it" compares to the consequences of other common respiratory illnesses. We've simply never bothered to look, and uncontrolled studies where someone enumerates a long list of things that happened after Covid, in a large group of people, are not evidence of those things being caused by Covid. Said differently: if you have a nearly ubiquitous illness, how can you say anything about causality regarding anything that follows? So what we have here is a pile of questionable research, a large group of people who are scared and demanding that action be taken, and politicians who are more than willing to "take action" by pushing aside, censoring, and otherwise bullying the scientists who stand in the way of their actions.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  >I'm not saying it doesn't exist okay, well, others with relevant qualifications are saying it DOES exist, so since nobody seems to be saying it doesn't, I guess we can go with their expert conclusions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - origin_path 4y ago
    The point of the article is that people with relevant qualifications are saying things like that, whilst also saying in private "this is wrong but I just need to get to retirement". Pretty much anything public health people say on the topic of COVID turns out to be wrong on close inspection. It's really astounding. Even very basic things like getting an actual clinical definition of COVID itself (let alone long COVID) turns out to be impossible, which is why the official definition governments use is "got a positive on a COVID test". That's not actually a disease symptom but COVID isn't defined by symptoms any more than long COVID is. The reason this happens is that public health is an authoritarian collectivist concept - the government will make decisions for the collective good even if individuals must suffer as a consequence. The entire culture of that space is dominated by a mindset that says, "we will obtain compliance by making scientific sounding claims, because people respect science and will follow it". That's why COVID research is so full of conflicting and nonsensical claims.

camgunz 4y ago

It's more like while you're obtaining "natural immunity", you're shedding virus that infects others. Similarly with masks, they weakly protect you from others, they strongly protect others from you. I feel like everywhere I look in the anti-COVID-vax community, no one reckons with the fact that their position gets others sick, and those people might die. Even this article focuses strongly on children not needing masks or vaccines, mentioning not at all kids getting others sick. Some cites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721405/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721405/ https://hms.harvard.edu/news/children-spread-covid-19 https://hms.harvard.edu/news/children-spread-covid-19 https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-sheds-light-roles-children-and-asymptomatic-infections-covid-19-household https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-sheds-light-roles-ch... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156154/