|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Illuminti posted:Exactly, I'm in Melbourne and the Powers That Be, have been desperately begging everyone to please not have people over to your house, avoid having your bi-weekly indoor spitathons and please god stop breaking the rules. They run (badly timed) commercials about drowning in your own lungs in the ICU. I guess this is just another example of the 1% using their classic reverse psychology tricks on us poor sheep. It's not the 99% of people breaking those laws though is it, it's a minority of people loving over the plan. We know this because if everyone was loving up the plan the growth would have been even higher. That you can get a spike from illegal footy parties that collectively would probably add up to regular 2019 activity shows that the majority of people are following the rules on regular days. If I piss in the pool it doesn't mean the "don't piss in the pool" rule is unpopular, that everyone else in the pool wants to swim in piss and would welcome a rescinding of the rule.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
How are u posted:Now this, to me, seems extremely alarmist. "Airborne Parkinsons" is an incredibly volatile claim, and until I see it widely reported among the mainstream, credible press I'm going to take this with shakers and shakers of salt. The problem is that if this were this case it would take a decade to present. By the time you can prove it, it’s much too late. It’s of my opinion that right now is the time for overly cautious behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
nexous posted:The problem is that if this were this case it would take a decade to present. By the time you can prove it, it’s much too late. It’s of my opinion that right now is the time for overly cautious behavior. Why would it take a decade?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why would it take a decade? Because Parkinson’s can progress for 40 years? Because multiple Covid infections may exacerbate brain disorders, not to mention heart and lung issues. Slowly getting worse every time you get infected. Long Covid, myocarditis, lung scarring, brain damage are documented issues after ONE infection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
Around here at least, the main reason people ignore precautions and don't get vaccinated is apathy. The threat of COVID isn't personal enough, hasn't hit home, we're so isolated we haven't had overflowing hospitals. There are far more pressing issues for most people on the rez than COVID, like how to put food on the table or pay your bill to keep the electricity/heat on. There were some community-level strict lockdowns that worked okay last year but that involved half a dozen tribal police vehicles enforcing quarantine round-the-clock on villages of a few hundred people with coordinated grocery delivery etc. Certainly there are economic pressures to open things up but it's also just individual human behavior, examples of which other posters have mentioned. As evidenced by Australia and NZ it's nearly impossible to enforce lockdown measures tightly enough across a large population to completely eliminate a Delta outbreak. You're always going to have part of the population that's non-compliant for various reasons. Also I haven't been following China's handling of the pandemic but fwiw they do still have a small number of reported cases daily. I guess we'll see if they're able to get to zero with Delta for a sustained period where NZ and Australia didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
If New Zealand can’t hold Re below unity when absolute case numbers are low, how do they expect to get Re below unity when absolute case numbers are high? There are a couple of known sources of negative feedback, but neither of them are great. If a large proportion of the population dies or survives infection, the population becomes less susceptible to further infection. The second factor is that, upon seeing mass suffering around them, many people will become afraid and voluntarily stay home. If that’s what leaders are counting on, I’d like them to come out and say it. If they are claiming some other mechanism, I’d like to hear about that, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Phigs posted:It's not the 99% of people breaking those laws though is it, it's a minority of people loving over the plan. We know this because if everyone was loving up the plan the growth would have been even higher. That you can get a spike from illegal footy parties that collectively would probably add up to regular 2019 activity shows that the majority of people are following the rules on regular days. That's why I said a significant proportion of them. Significant enough to gently caress up the effort to suppress Covid. I am not anti-lockdown. I am not a let 'er rip cheerleader. I was trying to make a point that the failure of zero covid policies is not down to billionaires and their tame politicians nefariously ending lock downs against the will of the people (well, not entirely!) in order to keep the stock market up. For what it's worth, I am a proud, but tired, member of the Melbourne Lockdown Club. 246 days in lockdown. My biggest breach has been forgetting about curfew and wearing my mask round my chin when walking the dog in a field. But it's getting to me, some weeks worse than others, and I'm fairly confident I'm in the top 1% of people situationally in Melbourne. I can work from home, i have a house with a garden etc. But I have friends who live in tiny one bed apartments. Who are more than 5k from their friends, whose families live in Sydney or Perth. I have family locked up with 3 kids. It's loving hard for them. People like them are doing their cost benefit analysis about breaking the rules and it's no surprise to me people are pushing the boundaries. People throwing grand final parties and the like can get hosed though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:There are a couple of known sources of negative feedback, but neither of them are great. If a large proportion of the population dies or survives infection, the population becomes less susceptible to further infection. The second factor is that, upon seeing mass suffering around them, many people will become afraid and voluntarily stay home. And we know that very specifically with covid, it suppresses and damages the immune system such that there is no meaningful long-term natural immunity. The only meaningful immunity to covid is from the active circulation of vaccine-induced antibodies (boosters at ~4mo intervals)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:And we know that very specifically with covid, it suppresses and damages the immune system such that there is no meaningful long-term natural immunity. The only meaningful immunity to covid is from the active circulation of vaccine-induced antibodies (boosters at ~4mo intervals) 4 months as a necessary booster interval, particularly post 3rd booster, is far from well established. Natural immunity and reinfection isn't that well understood either. I've seen ranges of recommendations anywhere from 6 months to 8 to "younger healthy people may not need boosters". (I haven't seen 4 specifically, but I don't doubt it's floating around somewhere)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:And we know that very specifically with covid, it suppresses and damages the immune system such that there is no meaningful long-term natural immunity. The only meaningful immunity to covid is from the active circulation of vaccine-induced antibodies (boosters at ~4mo intervals) citation needed If you're gonna make extreme claims there needs to be some evidence because I've not heard this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:citation needed Leonardi basically spends all day every day screaming this into the Twitter void. Severe reinfection, ADE, immune system (and other systems, obviously) damage, etc. https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1445187429250572291?s=20 Study linked in thread (no conflict of interest) https://twitter.com/RolandBakerIII/status/1445076379800780806?s=20 Thread has citations (no conflict of interest) https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1422559345577926657 T-cell waning (no conflict of interest) https://twitter.com/RolandBakerIII/status/1444423715802939397 ADE following infection (Competing Interest Statement: RAF is an advisor to Glaxo Smith Kline and Zai labs.) https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1444410452017139713?s=20 "Aging" off immune system (no conflict of interest)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:Leonardi basically spends all day every day screaming this into the Twitter void. Severe reinfection, ADE, immune system (and other systems, obviously) damage, etc. This is inconvenient to my narrative that everything’s okay. Please stop
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
I feel like D&D needs a thread on game theory, because just a very basic explanation of a game called Prisoners' Dilemma would correct the errors in reasoning that leads someone to conclude that because some players decided it was to their advantage to defect that this means that everyone analyzed the game and all concluded that they prefer the "both players defect" outcome to anything else. I get a lot of people aren't familiar with it, which is why we keep seeing the erroneous conclusion that because public health measures that weren't enforced were ignored, that this means everyone wanted their mee-maw to die and deliberately chose the course of action most likely to cause that outcome. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
nexous posted:This is inconvenient to my narrative that everything’s okay. Please stop Not a terribly helpful response, please refrain from quick shots at posters be they real or imagined if that's all you've got VitalSigns posted:I feel like D&D needs a thread on game theory, because just a very basic explanation of a game called Prisoners' Dilemma would correct the errors in reasoning that leads someone to conclude that because some players decided it was to their advantage to defect that this means that everyone analyzed the game and all concluded that they prefer the "both players defect" outcome to anything else. Make one if you feel it may be needed! People are reluctant to make new threads site-wide even and they shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:Leonardi basically spends all day every day screaming this into the Twitter void. Severe reinfection, ADE, immune system (and other systems, obviously) damage, etc. This seems like a gish galop of a bunch of mostly irrelevant things. Like the first link says reinfection is very rare and mentions the guy most likely to be reinfected is the guy in the poorest health and most likely to be hospitalized, not that it's a secret apocalypses disease that will reinfect you over and over worse and worse till you die. Other links in that seem to just be flat descriptions of how a disease works (every single disease on earth uses methods to avoid the immune system, if they didn't they couldn't be a disease) , not any sort of bombshell that it's uniquely bad. Some don't even seem like links to anything particular and just are things you linked to fill out a long post to make it look more authoritative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
Skimming through there, you've got at least one preprint and the immunological stuff is in humanized mice and rhesus macaque models. The T-cell aging paper also emphasizes that the effect is stronger with patient age. I also have no idea what Roland Baker's qualifications are, he appears to be the CEO of "Net Express" which is a computer systems business. At a glance my 2c is that there are some data to suggest what you claim but a handful of papers is not sufficient evidence to state with certainty. edit: owlofcreamcheese probably did a closer look than I did I was mostly looking at sourcing and the various journals to make sure nothing was predatory or suspicious. edit2: also looking more closely at the first link, increased hospitalization on reinfection is largely explained by it being extremely rare and occurring in people with very weakened immune systems. Like the screenshot in the tweet conveniently cuts off the section immediately below where it says reinfection is uncommon and the article itself discusses the hospitalizations are often of immunocompromised people. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
I'm not an expert but how does "covid suppresses the immune system" make sense when severe covid is largely caused by an overreaction of the immune system (aka cytokine storm)? There are viruses that suppress the immune system (HIV being the most infamous one) but Covid-19 is probably not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Great now I got to come up with a required reading list of immunology and infectious disease textbooks because 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I feel like D&D needs a thread on game theory, because just a very basic explanation of a game called Prisoners' Dilemma would correct the errors in reasoning that leads someone to conclude that because some players decided it was to their advantage to defect that this means that everyone analyzed the game and all concluded that they prefer the "both players defect" outcome to anything else. I saw a similar thing in the wild recently. quote:this is because natural disasters are happy to conform to human constraints. a similar phenomenon can be seen with covid limiting itself to spreading 3ft or less in indoor locations, and expanding its range slightly outdoors to 6ft quote:Using distance to mitigate risk of transmission have diminishing returns. Literally no one said COVID can't spread those distances. Someone drew a line in the sand and deemed that the acceptable risk. That line was drawn by people more qualified than you or I to draw it. The fact that most of the globe decided that a physical distance requirement is necessary speaks to a converging conclusion. Hence why it's not the own the poster was looking for. It turns out that all these qualified people were playing a game of telephone with prewar tuberculosis studies. They did not have fresh and independent reasons for the pronouncement that one to two metres was good enough. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I'm not an expert but how does "covid suppresses the immune system" make sense when severe covid is largely caused by an overreaction of the immune system (aka cytokine storm)? As I understand it, the cytokine storm is your immune system going absolutely apeshit in response to a pathogen, and is a big reason why it's severe. During the normal course of COVID it's at least suppressing immune response enough to spread, which is normal, it just becomes a whole different beast if your body decides to slap the LAUNCH ALL NUKES button
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This seems like a gish galop of a bunch of mostly irrelevant things. Like you, I have read zero of those papers just now, and it may be that one or more of them is irrelevant filler, but you can’t just dismiss them all out of hand as being a “Gish gallop”. A list of citations, even a long one, is not a Gish gallop when those citations were specifically requested, in a text‐based medium, as backing for “extreme claims”, which we all know require an extreme amount of evidence. Slow News Day posted:I'm not an expert but how does "covid suppresses the immune system" make sense when severe covid is largely caused by an overreaction of the immune system (aka cytokine storm)? The immune system has multiple facets. A disease can suppress one while aggravating another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
The tweet -> paper link that poster cited with the caption “T-cell waning” was a study conducted on monkeys with natural T cell deficiencies in an effort to distinguish whether T cells significantly improved the prognosis of Covid-19 infection. It’s findings were as follows:quote:Patients with severe COVID-19 often have decreased numbers of T cells, a cell type important in fighting most viral infections. However, it is not known whether the loss of T cells contributes to severe COVID-19 or is a consequence of it. We studied rhesus macaques, which develop only mild COVID-19, similar to most humans. Experimental depletion of T cells slightly prolonged their clearance of virus, but there was no increase in disease severity. Furthermore, they were able to develop protection from a second infection and produced antibodies capable of neutralizing the virus. They also developed immunological memory, which allows a much stronger and more rapid response upon a second infection. These results suggest that T cells are not critical for recovery from acute SARS-CoV-2 infections in this model and point toward B cell responses and antibodies as the essential mediators of protection from re-exposure. I can’t really tell how this is related to their original claims, or specifically anything to do with “waning T cell immunity” after natural infection. I’m half convinced they didn’t even read the study they linked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
TheSlutPit posted:I’m half convinced they didn’t even read the study they linked. Only half? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:That's why I said a significant proportion of them. Significant enough to gently caress up the effort to suppress Covid. I am not anti-lockdown. I am not a let 'er rip cheerleader. That's fair, thanks for the clarification. On a related note though not directed at you personally, I think that we should be looking at lockdown failures in terms of how can we increase compliance or decrease spread in ways that don't rely on compliance instead of giving up on the goal. Plenty of perfectly good systems we use today fail initially and are reworked until they don't. This reaction to give up when lockdowns don't work in their initial configuration would be really terrible if applied to almost any activity and I think an example of how anti-lockdown pressures are perverting the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I'm not an expert but how does "covid suppresses the immune system" make sense when severe covid is largely caused by an overreaction of the immune system (aka cytokine storm)? Literally every disease a human can get has some function to evade the immune system. A virus that doesn't would be cleared instantly. Something describing how a disease evades the immune system is not some secret proof the virus is uniquely secret AIDS, it's just part of the definition of how a virus gets to be a human disease. You have never had a disease in your life that didn't involve a virus or bacteria with some ability to fight or evade the human immune system. (also covid isn't commonly causing a cytokine storm, people just read that one book about spanish flu that said the word cytokine storm which was likely not even right and just now apply that to every single disease as a way more important thing than it is because it was such a cool word)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
TheSlutPit posted:The tweet -> paper link that poster cited with the caption “T-cell waning” was a study conducted on monkeys with natural T cell deficiencies in an effort to distinguish whether T cells significantly improved the prognosis of Covid-19 infection. It’s findings were as follows: PPV mischaracterized that one. I can tell you where Leonardi is coming from, though. For months, his loudest point has been that the common comfort that “waning antibodies are expected and fine because cell‐mediated immunity will take up the slack” is no comfort at all because with COVID‐19, cell‐mediated immunity doesn’t act swiftly and strongly enough to put down the infection before it does real damage. Why is he concerned about the animal studies with artificially depressed T‐cells? If we know that antibodies wane, and we accept that that’s O.K. because cell‐mediated immunity will take up the slack, it’s a problem if it turns out that T‐cells don’t actually pull much weight. Our immune system still has other tools, but having T‐cells contribute little to the fight does not bode well for a prompt and crushing victory against the virus. https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1440855343571951621 Maybe he’s right, or maybe dissenting immunologists are, but it’s a point that ought to be considered by policymakers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I saw a similar thing in the wild recently. Yeah and this was disproven by case studies pretty much immediately too, plenty of examples of covid travelling more than 6 feet in restaurants, airplanes, office buildings, etc. There was even that guy recently who was infected in a quarantine hotel by someone even though he'd never been in their presence at all, just walked through a hallway they'd been in. Not that it's useless and therefore you may as well start frenching every covid case in the tri-state area, it may be that in aggregate transmission is reduced if everyone stays six feet away at all times (is there any good actionable data on that though), but it isn't a magic conjuror's circle that stops covid dead as long as you follow the rules. Yet policies were created as if it were in an attempt to rules-lawyer a virus. Schools are perfectly safe as long as everyone stays And of course the loud minority of parents demanding we stop testing completely, can't have any outbreaks if there aren't any positive test results right guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:246 days in lockdown. quote:family locked up with 3 kids. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like the first link says reinfection is very rare
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Gio posted:This is definitely not true at all. quote:The cohort of 75,149 was predominantly Hispanic (49 648/75 149, 66.1%) and included slightly more females than males (39 736, 52.9%), with few immunocompromised patients (953, 1.3%); 315 suspected reinfections were identified, with a cumulative incidence at 270 days of 0.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7–1.0%). It's right there in the abstract. Out of 75,149 people who initially tested positive there were 315 suspected reinfections after 90 days post first infection (less than 1% cumulative incidence) over a 270-day period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:00
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:It's right there in the abstract. Out of 75,149 people who initially tested positive there were 315 suspected reinfections after 90 days post first infection (less than 1% cumulative incidence) over a 270-day period. Only 90 days after their first infection? That’s not definitive proof that reinfections are definitively rare in any way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
Gio posted:Only 90 days after their first infection? That’s not definitive proof that reinfections are definitively rare in any way. I may be communicating poorly. They were not checked once 90 days post-infection, the monitoring began 90 days after their first infection. See here: quote:A retrospective cohort of members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California with PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection between 1st March 2020 and 31st October 2020 was followed through electronic health records for subsequent positive SARS-CoV-2 tests (suspected reinfection) ≥90 days after initial infection, through 31st January 2021. edit: this is just one publication, there are certainly other data out there on reinfection. This is just the study that was linked as evidence hospitalization increases with subsequent infection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:It's right there in the abstract. Out of 75,149 people who initially tested positive there were 315 suspected reinfections after 90 days post first infection (less than 1% cumulative incidence) over a 270-day period. If talking reinfection rates, we need to know vaxxed infection rates, unvaxxed infection rates, and reinfected infection rates of the general population to know if this is significant (this is on the OP, not you, just quoting you for context)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
This is also a study that ended late January of this year, correct? Well before Delta, even before widespread prevalence of B117? I am going to plead ignorance here and not argue any further, but I will simply say that at this stage, with what we’ve seen Delta do, the idea that reinfection being rare is highly suspect and counterintuitive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
nexous posted:If talking reinfection rates, we need to know vaxxed infection rates, unvaxxed infection rates, and reinfected infection rates of the general population to know if this is significant (this is on the OP, not you, just quoting you for context) Sure and that's why you'd want to look at a number of publications on reinfection rates. I skimmed that article again and one thing they point out: quote:Additionally, during the study period testing focused primarily on symptomatic patients, limiting detection of asymptomatic initial infections and suspected reinfections. If reinfections are more likely to be asymptomatic, we would have underestimated the reinfection rate. Tests done outside of KPSC were not included; if asymptomatic persons were more likely to be tested outside of KPSC, and reinfections were more likely to be asymptomatic, this would overestimate hospitalizations and underestimate the suspected reinfection rate. The authors point out that their study misses tests done outside the Kaiser system and focused on symptomatic reinfections. If reinfections are more likely to be asymptomatic this means the overall reinfection rate would be higher but the % hospitalization overestimated. edit: Gio posted:This is also a study that ended late January of this year, correct? Well before Delta, even before widespread prevalence of B117? It's a much more complicated topic than will be answered by any one study, certainly. The initial claims were that infection doesn't produce lasting natural immunity and reinfection is more severe. This publication weakly supports the latter but it's far from conclusive proof by itself. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Phigs posted:On a related note though not directed at you personally, I think that we should be looking at lockdown failures in terms of how can we increase compliance or decrease spread in ways that don't rely on compliance instead of giving up on the goal. Plenty of perfectly good systems we use today fail initially and are reworked until they don't. This reaction to give up when lockdowns don't work in their initial configuration would be really terrible if applied to almost any activity and I think an example of how anti-lockdown pressures are perverting the process. It should be noted that neither Australia nor New Zealand have written off lockdowns as policy - they've just conceded that lockdowns are no longer achieving the original goal of elimination and have thus abandoned the goal of elimination as no longer possible. The lockdowns in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Auckland aren't "working" at driving cases down to zero, but they're still "working" in the sense that the situation in these cities would be far worse if they weren't in place. edit - and they will be remaining in place for some time. Auckland easing some restrictions doesn't mean they're lifting the lockdown. I think this gets garbled in the international press because there's such a wide variation as to what constitutes a "lockdown" in different parts of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Phigs posted:That's fair, thanks for the clarification. I'm not really sure it's possible without reworking society from the ground up. Lockdown is fairly simple. The only real way to stop spread, especially before we had a vaccine and after delta, was to dramatically restrict movement and contact with as few exceptions as possible. You have to essentially cut off all vectors for the virus until it literally doesn't exist in your area. Vectors are people so you have to stop them contacting other vectors and there's no other way than lockdown. I'm sure no one in this thread is unaware that this hits poorer people the worst so 100% they should have been given so much more support. But when a lockdown is hitting 200+ days it's starting to become untenable even if they were getting the appropriate support. Like I said I have a close family member, a single parent, with three kids under 10 living in a tiny house. Can you even imagine? Homeschooling, playgrounds closed, no money. She's even cut off from her usual support group i.e her family because she lives in the north of Melbourne and we're over 10k away. Grandparents are 60km away. There are various exemptions for caring that allow visits etc but it's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Some people in this thread saying "oh we should just lockdown for another 200 days, Covid zero is the only way." Well, I wish they could see what it's like for some people. Frankly I'm amazed the kids haven't gone feral and the mum hasn't been sectioned Exactly
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
Gio posted:This is definitely not true at all. the link: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:
Anyways, this goes back to a post OOCC made in that other thread about reinfection being rare. Earlier this year. He intuited that based on experience with other coronaviruses immunity could last years potentially. I do not have the data to say “reinfection is common” but, on the same token, I don’t think we can rule out that it is. Certainly in the face of Delta, the idea that it’s “very rare” would need more recent data to back up such a claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:the link: A single study that concluded late January, prior to Delta and B117. e: also, uncommon is not “very rare”
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:28
|
|