4 ms·

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

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.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      - dang 4y ago
        Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it a ton, unfortunately—dozens in this thread alone, and many more in your account's recent history. In fact, I found it hard to find even one post that wasn't somehow flamey, prickly, or swipey. This is not what HN is for. We want curious conversation here. It also looks like you've been using the site primarily for political and ideological battle, and that's a line at which we ban accounts. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. For past explanations about that, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
throwaway0a5e 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". Do you think we all have the memory of goldfish? In the height of the pandemic people were saying natural immunity was insufficient to prevent further infection to the degree that would matter the few who were talking about the "cost of natural immunity" (or any other sort of level headed adult discussion about tradeoffs) were ridiculed as enabling the anti-vaxers. >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. This is a two way street. If you get to be conservative about natural immunity the other guys get to be conservative about the vax.
- rustybelt 4y ago
  There has been an alarming pattern of public health communication throughout the pandemic: public official (Fauci, WHO official, CDC Director, President, Governor, etc.) makes assertion A about COVID, questioning of assertion A is harshly criticized as anti-science, racist, right wing, wanting to kill grandma . . . Six to twelve months later, the same public health establishment admits not only was assertion A not true, but it was never believed by said establishment. Most blatant examples: - Masks are not protective - The vaccine prevents infection (entire basis for mandates) - There is no evidence for lab leak - Natural immunity is not as effective as vaccine immunity - the virus is not spread via aerosols

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.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it a ton, unfortunately—dozens in this thread alone, and many more in your account's recent history. In fact, I found it hard to find even one post that wasn't somehow flamey, prickly, or swipey. This is not what HN is for. We want curious conversation here. It also looks like you've been using the site primarily for political and ideological battle, and that's a line at which we ban accounts. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. For past explanations about that, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

throwaway0a5e 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". Do you think we all have the memory of goldfish? In the height of the pandemic people were saying natural immunity was insufficient to prevent further infection to the degree that would matter the few who were talking about the "cost of natural immunity" (or any other sort of level headed adult discussion about tradeoffs) were ridiculed as enabling the anti-vaxers. >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. This is a two way street. If you get to be conservative about natural immunity the other guys get to be conservative about the vax.

rustybelt 4y ago
There has been an alarming pattern of public health communication throughout the pandemic: public official (Fauci, WHO official, CDC Director, President, Governor, etc.) makes assertion A about COVID, questioning of assertion A is harshly criticized as anti-science, racist, right wing, wanting to kill grandma . . . Six to twelve months later, the same public health establishment admits not only was assertion A not true, but it was never believed by said establishment. Most blatant examples: - Masks are not protective - The vaccine prevents infection (entire basis for mandates) - There is no evidence for lab leak - Natural immunity is not as effective as vaccine immunity - the virus is not spread via aerosols