33 replies to this topic

[Hip]

Richard Rose, 37, who died from coronavirus had dismissed pandemic ‘hype’ on Facebook.

 

Richard Rose said on Facebook:

 

"I’m not buying a f***ing mask”

 

and:

 

“I’ve made it this far by not buying into that damn hype”.

 

 

After he caught coronavirus, he then posted:

 

“This covid shit sucks! I’m so out of breath just sitting here”.

 

 

That was his last post before his death two days later.

A montage of all his Facebook his posts, detailing his coronavirus skepticism, is spreading on social media, and has been viewed 3.5 million times.

Edited by Hip, 15 July 2020 - 03:11 AM.

[Mind]

I think the fear factor has been over-hyped as well, and it is born out by the data. The mortality rate is a fraction of 1 percent. Watching the news, you might think people are falling over dead in the hundreds of thousands every single day. There are better strategies than constant fear-mongering and destruction of the economy not to mention with the emotional, spiritual, and psychological effects of constant fear and panic promotion.

 

I can say the fear/hype is too much, while also knowing I will catch the disease (everyone will get it eventually) and I have a minuscule chance of dying. Rationally, I know that the chances of dying while driving a car in the U.S. is 25 times more likely. I just keep things in perspective.

[Hip]

I think the fear factor has been over-hyped

As far as the UK news coverage is concerned, I don't see any fear mongering. But I believe US news tends to be presented in a more sensationalized way, so maybe it is different in the US. I can't really comment, as the only US channel I get on my cable TV is CNN International, which I don't watch these days (it's become too politically one-sided and propaganda-based).  
 
If anyone has any online examples of fear-mongering in the US news, either TV video clips or newspaper articles, please post, so that I can examine this fear mongering claim. I do not like sensationalized news; I like a calm sober rational presentation of the situation. 
 
Personally I don't have the slightest feeling of fear when it comes to coronavirus. Not even the tiniest hint of anxiety. I take lots of precautions to try to avoid catching coronavirus (especially because I have elderly parents in their 80s living with me). But those precautions are not motivated by fear, but by rationality, and by just wanting to do the right thing. 
 
 
 
Whether or not the US coronavirus news has been sensationalized and injected with too much fear, one thing is for sure: this guy who refused to wear a face mask (and presumably refused to take other precautions too, since he viewed the whole thing as hype) would probably be alive today if he had taken more heed of the news coverage. 
 
Maybe this is the downside to constantly sensationalized news: it may draw in the viewers, but in the end you get suspicious that everything is being over-exaggerated on the news, so start to ignore it.
 

Edited by Hip, 15 July 2020 - 03:57 PM.

[gamesguru]

The mortality rate is a fraction of 1 percent.

 

Weird how you keep claiming this without citing studies.  My sources are suggesting a fatality rate above 0.5%.  But the whole idea of one CFR may be misleading.  Depends on lot of things.  Not to mention the fact that it could have long-term effects, we could get re-infected within a matter of years, and it's already close to killing 0.1% of Americans without presumably having infected more than 10-15%.

 

 

Yes, Hip I agree that making things political and calling the news sensationalist or alarmist does no good.  It's clearly a negative, politicizing, spite-filled tendency, which is oftentimes even absurd. Shocking a moderator would be the one to sour the pot

 

Repeatedly calling the whole thing "a steady stream of BS"^[1], calling out "BS on the over-reaction to COVID-19"^[2] and accusing Democrat governors of "gross incompetence" and "outright stupidity or incompetence"^[3] is surely not a good look on a supposedly enlightened life extensionist leader of a forum board

 

You're literally saying nothing productive and instead stirring the fire with polarizing stakes.  It's literally not possible to make progress with one who refuses to change his mind and instead makes things political

[Mind]

Josh Mittledorf thinks there has been too much fear-mongering: https://joshmitteldo...ce-of-covid-19/

 

Ioaniddis' review of the data indicates mortality rate for people under 45 is essentially zero, for ages 45 to 70 up to 0.3%, for over 75 much higher. https://www.washingt...der-45-almost-0

[Daniel Cooper]

 

It's literally not possible to make progress with one who refuses to change his mind and instead makes things political

 

It seems we rather have a rash of people making things political, wouldn't you agree?

 

Why, I seem to recall a poster repeatedly disparaging "Republicans" and "conservatives" in multiple threads.

Josh Mittledorf thinks there has been too much fear-mongering: https://joshmitteldo...ce-of-covid-19/

 

Ioaniddis' review of the data indicates mortality rate for people under 45 is essentially zero, for ages 45 to 70 up to 0.3%, for over 75 much higher. https://www.washingt...der-45-almost-0

 

 

Having read Mittledorf's blog for years now, he doesn't strike me as a right wing radical.  

[Hip]

Josh Mittledorf thinks there has been too much fear-mongering: https://joshmitteldo...ce-of-covid-19/

 

Ioaniddis' review of the data indicates mortality rate for people under 45 is essentially zero, for ages 45 to 70 up to 0.3%, for over 75 much higher. https://www.washingt...der-45-almost-0

 

One thing the current death rate figures do not take into account is the fact that 4 months after a coronavirus infection, you may lose immunity to it, and can be infected again. Studies have shown that coronavirus antibody levels drop dramatically 4 months after a primary infection, and we already have proven cases where people have been reinfected after 4 months.

 

And there is some evidence that the second time around, a coronavirus infection becomes more severe. One speculative reason for being worse second time around relates to the heart damage caused during the first infection. So when the virus comes around again, you have already sustained some bodily damage. See this thread. 

 

 

So it is looking like the herd immunity some people were banking on may not occur, or may be much weaker than we would like, and thus if we let the pandemic grow unabated, and let the virus start circulating rampantly among populations, people would keep getting infected and re-infected over and over again, every 4 months or so. And on each re-infection, the virus may well further chip away at a person's health, and in many cases might kill on subsequent reinfections, even if the person got away lightly during the first infection. That's one possible scenario, anyway.

 

It is very unfortunate that long-term immunity does not develop to coronavirus. Viruses when you catch them will typically stimulate the production of antibodies which protect you from reinfection for a decade or so before fading. But for some reason, coronavirus does not induce a long-term production of antibodies. So this makes the pandemic very hard to control, because the virus can keep coming back to reinfect people. 

 

The only solution is going to be a vaccine, which we hope will stimulate the long-term production of protective antibodies.

Edited by Hip, 15 July 2020 - 08:54 PM.

[gamesguru]

One thing the current death rate figures do not take into account is

 

Not to mention the fact that a majority of estimates going into these meta-analyses are based off sero-prevalence studies which were often peer-reviewed under suspicious circumstances, and reportedly overestimate the true prevalence and underestimate the true fatality rate.  Why even include the data in an analysis if it's fouled?

[gamesguru]

Josh Mittledorf thinks there has been too much fear-mongering: https://joshmitteldo...ce-of-covid-19/

 

Ioaniddis' review of the data indicates mortality rate for people under 45 is essentially zero, for ages 45 to 70 up to 0.3%, for over 75 much higher. https://www.washingt...der-45-almost-0

 

That's great, so this guy whose blog "doesn't strike [us] as a right wing radical" concludes the CFR is basically zero percent.

Cool.  Now what does the CDC have to say?  They're reporting a vastly different situation, and it's unlikely these numbers are underestimated more than 3-5x.

 

It seems we rather have a rash of people making things political, wouldn't you agree?

 

Why, I seem to recall a poster repeatedly disparaging "Republicans" and "conservatives" in multiple threads.

Only weeks after silently enduring an onslaught of "this is BS, Cuomo sucks" (political attacks and misinformation) from Mind though not necessarily directed at me, still strikingly offensive and potentially quite mistaken.  Like why instigate an attack on Cuomo, he was literally ground zero.  Be critical of your own camp for once.  Artificially staggering goal posts and expecting to corral others through will never lead to a consensus.  Blindly conjuring up a dividing a line between yourself and the other is no way to achieve common understanding or progress

Edited by gamesguru, 15 July 2020 - 09:26 PM.

[gamesguru]

Josh Mittledorf thinks

 

Josh Mittledorf is a great source of information.. on evolution and aging theories.  He's an astrophysics dropout hippie with rich parents who pursued aging research as a hobby without having to endure corporate or university life.

 

He definitely shouldn't be your locus of information concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.  That's how you ended up in the deep end, following some anti-aging pundit into the dark depths of epidemiology (of which he obviously is quite naive).  Peruse reddit and google, shut your cable news off.. then you will finally see the light.  Blindly believe these antibody studies and some anti-aging pundit on matters he knows little but has passionate beliefs, and, well, you too will know little with great passion

 

I'd be more inclined to believe him with the HCQ debate, because that at least involves some biology and isn't pure math.

Edited by gamesguru, 16 July 2020 - 10:29 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

That's great, so this guy whose blog "doesn't strike [us] as a right wing radical" concludes the CFR is basically zero percent.

Cool.  Now what does the CDC have to say?  They're reporting a vastly different situation, and it's unlikely these numbers are underestimated more than 3-5x.

 

 

You do realize that the data in that table is the percentage of deaths per age bracket, not CRF, right?  It has virtually nothing to do with CFR.

[gamesguru]

You do realize that the data in that table is the percentage of deaths per age bracket, not CRF, right?  It has virtually nothing to do with CFR.

 

You do realize the majority of the scientific community isn't insisting the reported cases vastly under-represent the actual case count?  So let's assume the majority of scientists are right, and at least 20% of cases are reported.  Let us also assume a relatively (no more than 80% error) even distribution of infections across age brackets.  Then it follows the CFR for the 45-64 brackets is not "essentially zero" as Mind suggests

[Daniel Cooper]

Let's do a little math here, shall we ......

 

If I take your chart and add all up all the percentages for the brackets < 45 y.o. I get 2.545%.  These are percentage of covid deaths by age, not CFRs.  So, of all covid-19 deaths, 2.545% of them are 44 years old and younger.  We agree?  This is from the data you supplied.

 

What's your CFR?  What is the CFR?  The case fatality rate is simply the number of known covid-19 deaths divided by the number of known covid-19 cases.  There is no estimation or under representation here, because definitionally we are talking about known covid deaths vs. known covid cases.  

 

So in the US, what is the CFR?  The worst number I found was just under 4% (3.98%).  So, the CFR for those 44 years old an younger would be 2.545% of 3.98% = 0.1013%.  Now, I don't know about you, but 0.1013% is pretty damned close to zero to me. 

 

 

[gamesguru]

we are talking about known covid deaths vs. known covid cases.  

 

So in the US, what is the CFR?  The worst number I found was just under 4% (3.98%).  So, the CFR for those 44 years old an younger would be 2.545% of 3.98% = 0.1013%.  Now, I don't know about you, but 0.1013% is pretty damned close to zero to me. 

It's also fair to talk, speculatively and per-emptively, about actual covid deaths and cases.  I think there are relatively more unreported cases than deaths, but not by a factor of more than 3-5x.  Flawed antibody studies are suggesting an incidence 30-50x higher than reported, which is actually impossible in places like Italy and NYC

 

If 0.1% is so close to zero, why don't you take the chances.  Take them every two years, immunity might not last longer than that.  And also, please let me know if there's any other chronic side effects.

 

Not to mention Mind's claim that the bracket of 45-73 is at only 0.3% risk

[Daniel Cooper]

It's also fair to talk, speculatively and per-emptively, about actual covid deaths and cases.  I think there are relatively more unreported cases than deaths, but not by a factor of more than 3-5x.  Flawed antibody studies are suggesting an incidence 30-50x higher than reported, which is actually impossible in places like Italy and NYC

What you're talking about is the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This can only be estimated, of course and would be the total deaths divided by the total infected.  As you imply, we come nearer knowing the total deaths (although there was be some uncounted) than we do the total infected, which we can only guess at.  But, it's hard to see that the IFR wouldn't be quite a bit smaller than the CFR, which is the norm for these things.
 

If 0.1% is so close to zero, why don't you take the chances.  Take them every two years, immunity might not last longer than that.  And also, please let me know if there's any other chronic side effects.

 

I take a chance every time I go to work.  Yes, some of us, even white collar workers, still go to work 5 days a week.  If I multiple my chance of getting infected by some reasonably likely guess at the IFR, it's a number that I'm comfortable with.  In spite of the subject of this website, at the current time death comes to us all and I'm fairly certain for my particular situation this isn't likely to be my most significant death risk.

 

Not to mention Mind's claim that the bracket of 45-73 is at only 0.3% risk

 

So using your table and a CFR of 3.98%, I get a CFR of 1.49% for 45 - 74 years old.  But, this is CFR.  If you'll look back I think that the claim was against the IFR.  We know that the IFR will be quite a bit lower than the CFR (it always is).  How much lower?  Depends on your model of how many actual infections exist for every diagnosed infection and how many actual deaths exist for every counted death.  The math for 0.3% implies that there is a factor of 5 between the CFR and the IFR.  That's not out of the realm of possibility, but I have no idea and no way to vet the model.  If I'm conservative and say CRF and IFR differ by a factor of 2 then we're down to 0.75% chance of death if you're infected in that age group.  I don't find that to be implausible.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 17 July 2020 - 01:27 AM.

[gamesguru]

I take a chance every time I go to work.  Yes, some of us, even white collar workers, still go to work 5 days a week.  If I multiple my chance of getting infected by some reasonably likely guess at the IFR, it's a number that I'm comfortable with.  In spite of the subject of this website, at the current time death comes to us all and I'm fairly certain for my particular situation this isn't likely to be my most significant death risk.

 

 

So using your table and a CFR of 3.98%, I get a CFR of 1.49% for 45 - 74 years old.  But, this is CFR.  If you'll look back I think that the claim was against the IFR.  We know that the IFR will be quite a bit lower than the CFR (it always is).  How much lower?  Depends on your model of how many actual infections exist for every diagnosed infection and how many actual deaths exist for every counted death.  The math for 0.3% implies that there is a factor of 5 between the CFR and the IFR.  That's not out of the realm of possibility, but I have no idea and no way to vet the model.  If I'm conservative and say CRF and IFR differ by a factor of 2 then we're down to 0.75% chance of death if you're infected in that age group.  I don't find that to be implausible.

 

I agree the risk for healthy people under 40 is probably low.  But supposing you do get the infection (which IMO the risk in states with < 20,000 active cases is relatively low < 0.1% each day for somewhat isolated) the risk is a bit bad.

 

I honestly don't find the 5x under-estimate that unlikely either.  Maybe a bit on the generous side, but there are surely plenty of people either not getting tested or showing symptoms.

 

But let's be generous.

 

If you do get the infection, and you are middle aged, I doubt many would jump for joy at the chance to play "1 in 300 roulette".  Let's look at it another way.. Traffic accidents kill about 40,000 Americans each year, but COVID is on track to kill more than that many young adults alone in 2020.  Granted, the risk is more heavily weighted on less healthy individuals and so averages are meaningless when the deviation is so large.

 

It's important to compare these against the background of flu fatality rates, where young healthy people typically report fatality rate around just 0.01-0.05% for mild to moderate flu seasons.  So it doesn't make sense to keep comparing this to the flu.  It's clearly occupying that eerie middle ground between what is ubiquitous or benign and what is invariably fatal.

 

Nevertheless, let's do a crude estimate where for moderate to extremely healthy people the risk is even 10x lower of dying or having complications.  I would argue this "1 in 3000" roulette is worse than driving a car on the highway, but probably not enough to justify quitting your job. Where it gets sticky is when you have parents or grandparents in your life you take care of. That's when it becomes frustrating to look at countries that got this reportedly under control while we in the West have to live in constant fear and disarray

Edited by gamesguru, 17 July 2020 - 01:10 AM.

[platypus]

The covid-19 response in the USA has been disastrous lue to lack of leadership and misguided attempts to open some states prematurely. That is #sad. 

 

Regarding younger folks, the problem is that those who do not die from the disease can still get permanent organ damage that can severely limit the quality of life afterwards. 

[Daniel Cooper]

The covid-19 response in the USA has been disastrous lue to lack of leadership and misguided attempts to open some states prematurely. That is #sad. 

 

Regarding younger folks, the problem is that those who do not die from the disease can still get permanent organ damage that can severely limit the quality of life afterwards. 

 

Do we know what the incidence of permanent organ damage is?

[Hip]

Do we know what the incidence of permanent organ damage is?

 

I don't think that info is available yet; this article states that 55% of of COVID-19 patients who are given heart ultrasound scans (echocardiograms) are seen to have heart damage, such as damaged heart ventricles.

 

However, the article points out that echocardiograms are only given to COVID-19 patients when doctors suspect heart issues in the first place. So this does not tell us the actual prevalence of heart damage in coronavirus patients. It just tells us that when COVID patients develop suspected heart problems, in around half of these cases, there is verifiable heart damage.

[gamesguru]

June 16th nature.com updated article on IFR placing it at ~0.6%

 

This would suggest countries reporting close to a 10% CFR are only reporting 5-10% of total cases

How deadly is the coronavirus? Scientists are close to an answer

One of the most crucial questions about an emerging infectious disease such as the new coronavirus is how deadly it is. After months of collecting data, scientists are getting closer to an answer.

Researchers use a metric called infection fatality rate (IFR) to calculate how deadly a new disease is. It is the proportion of infected people who will die as a result, including those who don’t get tested or show symptoms.

“The IFR is one of the important numbers alongside the herd immunity threshold, and has implications for the scale of an epidemic and how seriously we should take a new disease,” says Robert Verity, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London.

Calculating an accurate IFR is challenging in the midst of any outbreak because it relies on knowing the total number of people infected — not just those who are confirmed through testing. But the fatality rate is especially difficult to pin down for COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, says Timothy Russell, a mathematical epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. That’s partly because there are many people with mild or no symptoms, whose infection has gone undetected, and also because the time between infection and death can be as long as two months. Many countries are also struggling to count all their virus-related deaths, he says. Death records suggest that some of those are being missed in official counts.

Data from early in the pandemic overestimated how deadly the virus was, and then later analyses underestimated its lethality. Now, numerous studies — using a range of methods — estimate that in many countries some 5 to 10 people will die for every 1,000 people with COVID-19. “The studies I have any faith in are tending to converge around 0.5–1%,” says Russell.

[mikeinnaples]

So if death rate normalizes to between .5 and 1%, this still makes this a very serous virus given how contagious it is. I think people throw way to much weight on the death count and not enough on the hospitalization rate, which is way higher. We also know there are complications with this virus that go well beyond simply respiratory problems. The blood clotting issue, lasting neurological symptoms, organ damage, and long term illness that some people experience makes this something I personally want to avoid. Sure, I am 45 and in excellent physical shape compared to most people even a decade younger than me and my risk of 'dying' is probably very low even with factors that put me at a higher risk (A+ blood type and exercised induced asthma). That doesn't mean I want to spend days/weeks in a hospital on oxygen or a ventilator and have long term issues because I caught this thing.

 

Truthfully, we aren't going to know the true toll of this for years to come and even then it will only be a best guess. Especially considering that this thing can kill without even presenting respiratory symptoms due to the aforementioned clotting issue. Call it fear factor hype or over hyped if you want, but I find that there are too many people not taking this seriously enough to even take basic precautions especially in my state. Maybe there isn't enough fear or maybe it is just due to the total lack of leadership from the top down in the US (and from our Gov. in FL). Anyways, I have to say I called my shot with Florida despite a few of the other posters disagreeing with me. Infections through the roof, hospitalizations drastically up, and deaths way up..... All this despite most of the new infections occurring in younger people in Florida.

 

Anyhow, one more thing to consider. We can talk death rate all we want, but know that each and every single one of those patients put on a ventilator as well as some of those just on oxygen would be casualties if it were not for modern medicine. The places without those resources and any health care system forced into triage due to being overwhelmed ..... well good luck.

[gamesguru]

Do we know what the incidence of permanent organ damage is?

 

Do we have to pigeonhole it above a specific percentage point for you to take the threat seriously?  I was astounded at your incredulity to believe COVID causes unprecedented hospital strain, scarring pneumonia, blood clots around the body, or even that you can catch it every 2-3 years with a practically reset acquired immunity.

 

You may wish to re-open schools, you may believe the thing is harmless and what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger, but students and teachers are not cannon fodder.  It will be safest if you test your ideas on yourself without subjugating society at large.

[Daniel Cooper]

So let me get this straight.  Someone declares how disastrous the covid response has been in the US because of a lack of leadership and references the issue of long term organ damage, and you don't think it's relevant as to whether there have been 100 cases of organ damage or 100,000?  As if asking for actual data somehow cheapens the debate on what is suppose to be a scientifically oriented forum?

 

And if you can find a case where I've stated that the covid pandemic does not cause a strain on the health care system I would very much like to see it.

 

Your deployment of straw men in that single response is really quite breathtaking.  Bravo.  Well done.

 

 

 

 

[gamesguru]

I said percentage point, implying if it was 2% that maybe we have a 50% error of 1-3%.  I never said it could vary between 0.01% and 10%.  I never even suggested it was that low.  If you believe the things that harmless, go catch it in Florida and take it back to your grandparents and duly report your insights.  I'm sick of your opinions with no real world experience or data behind them.  I'm sick of you twisting my words against me in a sad effort to delay inevitable defeat. I expect less emotion and more intelligence from a mod, alas i have been frequently disappointed in life before so why should that change

 

Honestly if this thing kills on average 0.5% of infectees, it seems logical enough a similar proportion should suffer damage or lingering effects.  Such was the case with SARS, MERS, and ebola, which were all novel and potently systemic inflammatory agents.  Plus, rather safe than sorry.  Rather safe than dead.  Rather take a chance on progress than die with one disingenuous hand glued to the bible

Edited by gamesguru, 25 July 2020 - 10:42 PM.

[pamojja]

Now, numerous studies — using a range of methods — estimate that in many countries some 5 to 10 people will die for every 1,000 people with COVID-19. “The studies I have any faith in are tending to converge around 0.5–1%,” says Russell.

 

Beside this prepublished piece, on this site a link collection of

Studies on Covid-19 lethality

[Mind]

One thing the current death rate figures do not take into account is the fact that 4 months after a coronavirus infection, you may lose immunity to it, and can be infected again. Studies have shown that coronavirus antibody levels drop dramatically 4 months after a primary infection, and we already have proven cases where people have been reinfected after 4 months.

 

And there is some evidence that the second time around, a coronavirus infection becomes more severe. One speculative reason for being worse second time around relates to the heart damage caused during the first infection. So when the virus comes around again, you have already sustained some bodily damage. See this thread. 

 

 

So it is looking like the herd immunity some people were banking on may not occur, or may be much weaker than we would like, and thus if we let the pandemic grow unabated, and let the virus start circulating rampantly among populations, people would keep getting infected and re-infected over and over again, every 4 months or so. And on each re-infection, the virus may well further chip away at a person's health, and in many cases might kill on subsequent reinfections, even if the person got away lightly during the first infection. That's one possible scenario, anyway.

 

It is very unfortunate that long-term immunity does not develop to coronavirus. Viruses when you catch them will typically stimulate the production of antibodies which protect you from reinfection for a decade or so before fading. But for some reason, coronavirus does not induce a long-term production of antibodies. So this makes the pandemic very hard to control, because the virus can keep coming back to reinfect people. 

 

The only solution is going to be a vaccine, which we hope will stimulate the long-term production of protective antibodies.

 

No lasting immunity after being infected with this particular coronavirus was always a short-term unscientific assumption. Multiple studies have now found lasting immunity. Here is another:

 

Mild COVID-19 cases can lead to antibody protection for life - Study Finds

[Hip]

No lasting immunity after being infected with this particular coronavirus was always a short-term unscientific assumption. 

 

 

It was an assumption, but quite a scientific one, as it was based on the fact that immunity to common cold coronaviruses is short-lived.

 

But it would be good news if immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is longer-lived, as this study suggests. 

 

However, such long-lasting immunity will not protect against any SARS-CoV-2 variants which evolve into a sufficiently different virus. So yearly coronavirus vaccinations which target the latest variants may still be needed. 

[Ames]

One thing the current death rate figures do not take into account is the fact that 4 months after a coronavirus infection, you may lose immunity to it, and can be infected again. Studies have shown that coronavirus antibody levels drop dramatically 4 months after a primary infection, and we already have proven cases where people have been reinfected after 4 months.

 

And there is some evidence that the second time around, a coronavirus infection becomes more severe. One speculative reason for being worse second time around relates to the heart damage caused during the first infection. So when the virus comes around again, you have already sustained some bodily damage. See this thread. 

 

 

So it is looking like the herd immunity some people were banking on may not occur, or may be much weaker than we would like, and thus if we let the pandemic grow unabated, and let the virus start circulating rampantly among populations, people would keep getting infected and re-infected over and over again, every 4 months or so. And on each re-infection, the virus may well further chip away at a person's health, and in many cases might kill on subsequent reinfections, even if the person got away lightly during the first infection. That's one possible scenario, anyway.

 

It is very unfortunate that long-term immunity does not develop to coronavirus. Viruses when you catch them will typically stimulate the production of antibodies which protect you from reinfection for a decade or so before fading. But for some reason, coronavirus does not induce a long-term production of antibodies. So this makes the pandemic very hard to control, because the virus can keep coming back to reinfect people. 

 

The only solution is going to be a vaccine, which we hope will stimulate the long-term production of protective antibodies.

 

You're narratives are often confidently wrong on varying fronts, with the consistency in your arguments being that you conclude with vax promotion. I'm unsure what your aim is, but if its to convince people to get vaxed then I'd offer that your particular brand of promotion could have the opposite effect.

 

https://www.nature.c...586-021-01442-9

https://www.nature.c...586-021-03647-4

 

Had COVID? You'll probably make antibodies for a lifetime. 

People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer.

 

 

COVID conferred immunity not noted to be different from the vax, but there is the same disclaimer /  threat that is now inserted into all these articles about variants requiring forever-vaccinations (after the variants outrun the prior vaccination / immunity). Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging variants through use of leaky vaccines. 

Edited by Ames, 04 August 2021 - 06:03 AM.

[Ames]

It was an assumption, but quite a scientific one, as it was based on the fact that immunity to common cold coronaviruses is short-lived.

 

But it would be good news if immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is longer-lived, as this study suggests. 

 

However, such long-lasting immunity will not protect against any SARS-CoV-2 variants which evolve into a sufficiently different virus. So yearly coronavirus vaccinations which target the latest variants may still be needed. 

 

"Will not protect against any variants"?

 

Rhetorical question: how do you know?

 

That's an absolute declaration in regard to knowledge that you can't possibly have. Followed by by the requisite vax promotion. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/...health-12152500

[Hip]

You're narratives are often confidently wrong on varying fronts, with the consistency in your arguments being that you conclude with vax promotion. I'm unsure what your aim is, but if its to convince people to get vaxed then I'd offer that your particular brand of promotion could have the opposite effect.

 

 

COVID conferred immunity not noted to be different from the vax, but there is the same disclaimer /  threat that is now inserted into all these articles about variants requiring forever-vaccinations (after the variants outrun the prior vaccination / immunity). Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging variants through use of leaky vaccines. 

 

If you were actually following the science, and if you can remember as far back as the beginning of the pandemic, there were grave concerns that coronavirus infection would not produce lasting immunity. Fortunately, it has turned out coronavirus infection does produce immunity which lasts for a reasonably long time. 

 

If on the other hand you were getting your information from social media influencers, you probably do not know about the science.

 

There is a difference, you know, between professors of immunology, and bimbo influencers with large breasts on a YouTube channel.  

 

 

As someone who developed a crippling lifelong disease (myalgic encephalomyelitis, aka ME/CFS) from a viral infection I had 15 years ago, I have been promoting vaccines and research into viruses for some time. I live every miserable day with the consequences of not being protected from some of the nasty viruses out there which can cause chronic disease. 

 

Unless you have experienced for yourself the horrors of what a virus can do to totally destroy your life, you really don't understand the potential consequences of a viral infection.

 

 

The Longevity community are an innocent bunch who don't really understand the causes of ill health and early death.

 

Like most people in the general public, the Longevity community don't appreciate (and are not even aware of) the link between infectious pathogens and chronic disease. The whole Longevity community is barking up the wrong tree, in terms of what they think causes ill health and early death. I have been trying to bring pathogens to the awareness of the Longevity community on this forum for years, but without anyone really listening.

 

If you look at the research of Prof Paul Ewald, he believes almost all chronic diseases and cancers will turn out to be caused by infectious pathogens.  

 

My agenda is trying to help the human race to become healthier in future, through science, so that less people end up like me. My agenda is trying to make people understand how dangerous infectious pathogens are for our health. I've been doing this long before the coronavirus pandemic. There are many other viruses in common circulation which can take a terrible toll on health. 

 

I always campaign for lots more research into viruses, and into better means to control viruses (like universal antivirals such as DRACO, better vaccines, etc).

 

 

See for example these threads which I started many years back:

 

Coxsackievirus B vaccine appears feasible, and may drastically reduce ME/CFS incidence in future (started in 2013)

 

This thread explains that enterovirus is likely killing 90,000 people per year in the US, due to triggering heart attacks, and that we need a good vaccine for enterovirus. One of the nasty enteroviruses is coxsackievirus B, linked to many chronic diseases, including T1D.

 

 

Coxsackievirus B vaccine protects against CVB-induced type I diabetes in a mouse model

 

This thread shows that a coxsackievirus B vaccine may eliminate type 1 diabetes.

Edited by Hip, 04 August 2021 - 01:45 PM.