5 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] thread
This article summarizes a large amount of research and analysis.

*Edit: Please cite the particular claims you are flagging this for, so others (including me as a lay reader) can try to address them.

For kevingadd, I think that claim comes from the statement below, drawn from this study [1]. "Scientists are now showing evidence that up to 81% of us can mount a strong response to COVID-19 without ever having been exposed to it before" [1] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1

For jschwartzi, yes, that claim is theorizing, but so is any other claim on HIT. This study qualifies that figure to an extent[2]. [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v...

"70% of people are likely naturally immune" is an incredibly wild claim I haven't seen anyone make before and it's not even a hyperlink to a source. The article clearly is based on some sources but it's really unclear to me what claims are sourced from where despite the fact that it's making very strong claims.
He also talks about the HIT being "as low as" 19%. In other words, he doesn't know but he's theorizing that's the case. What if it isn't?
When I visit a website I make sure to look at the collection of articles that they have published. This gives me an idea of their mission, and how to interpret their content.

In this website, this advice is relevant.

Why can't you interpret the evidence in this article on its own? You seem to be relying too heavily on your biases to make decisions for you.