This is neither surprising nor concerning. It is exactly what you would expect from a coronavirus, remembering that a lot of what we now call the common cold is caused by various coronavirus strains. It would be shocking if we did _not_ see re-infection.
The important questions are as follows:
1. What is the _severity_ of reinfection?
2. What is the average immune response of re-infections?
3. If the infection is less severe, what is the shedding rate? How infectious are the re-infected?
4. Does re-infection occur in those who receive mRNA vaccinations (this is not really testable yet)
The pearl clutching with everything COVID related is quite concerning, moreso than the disease itself. The science is interesting, but the medias obsession with exaggerating and fear-mongering this disease is incredible. With that said, I appreciate that the link is to the paper, and not a media report on the paper. However I do await the stories that this proves we are all doomed :(
I wouldn’t say it’s entirely unconcerning. Especially if reinfected patients can still spread the virus. This could really prolong the whole mess until full deployment of a vaccine.
This is primarily significant because it means “herd immunity” will not kick in and end the pandemic. Its looking more like this will be another endemic disease like influenza that permanently depresses life expectancy. Without flu, life expectancies would go up a year or two in developed countries.
Really? I havent read anything about animal reservoirs. Are you speculating that they might exist?
Not everyone needs to be vaccinated to eradicate a disease. A large fraction can go unvaccinated and as long as recirculation is slow enough the natural immunity will result in eradication even among that population.
> pearl clutching with everything COVID related is quite concerning, moreso than the disease itself.
At the high points of the peak in the US, COVID 19 was killing more people per week than cancer or heart disease in the US. If everybody was just going on with business as usual, there's no reason to believe that the curve would have been turned.
If you're in an at-risk group, COVID is really dangerous. The case fatality rate is around 3% in the US, and it's extremely contagious, so it's plausible to imagine a world where everybody got it.
I think with these numbers in mind, a little bit of 'pearl clutching' is warranted.
There was only ever a few weeks there that excess death count was above average (see above). We have been at or below average for several weeks now. When you factor that in with the fact that vast majority of Covid deaths (over 90%) had comorbidities, we can safely conclude this virus is not as deadly as it has been hyped up to be. Case fatality rate is nowhere near 3%. Most estimates have been 0.25% or lower. Vast majority of the population has natural immunity and remains asymptomatic even upon infection.
EDIT REPLY: No average excess deaths is never zero, as you can see in the chart down the page listed above on the CDC site. We have been down in the range of a bad flu season for a couple months now. Why is excess death count important? Because it disentangles the people who died from Covid from the people who died with Covid. If a 90 year old dies with Covid, and that same person would have statistically likely died from any disease including pneumonia or the flu, it's worth noting. It has substantial implications for society. That's why excess death count is worth looking at.
As a layman I have to ask: Isn't this what happens with "the flu" (our annual flu waves) every year? It infects us, we fight it back, it mutates, infects us again, we fight it off again, and the cycle repeats.
If we all made a reasonable effort to isolate, even if not perfect, then it seems to me that the virus would be forced to evolve to spread more easily with fewer symptoms which is what we want.
How well did "herd immunity" work in WWI, where they sent the sick to the crowded hospitals?
It may be twice, possibly three times as deadly at the older end of the population, but it is nowhere near as deadly at the younger end - where flu is a much bigger killer.
It certainly isn't ten times as deadly overall.
Moving from blasé to hysterical helps nobody. We need to be rational.
21 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 52.5 ms ] threadThe important questions are as follows:
1. What is the _severity_ of reinfection?
2. What is the average immune response of re-infections?
3. If the infection is less severe, what is the shedding rate? How infectious are the re-infected?
4. Does re-infection occur in those who receive mRNA vaccinations (this is not really testable yet)
The pearl clutching with everything COVID related is quite concerning, moreso than the disease itself. The science is interesting, but the medias obsession with exaggerating and fear-mongering this disease is incredible. With that said, I appreciate that the link is to the paper, and not a media report on the paper. However I do await the stories that this proves we are all doomed :(
Vaccination slows the rate of transmission and so protects people who are high risk of death and harm while everyone else gets on with life.
Not everyone needs to be vaccinated to eradicate a disease. A large fraction can go unvaccinated and as long as recirculation is slow enough the natural immunity will result in eradication even among that population.
At the high points of the peak in the US, COVID 19 was killing more people per week than cancer or heart disease in the US. If everybody was just going on with business as usual, there's no reason to believe that the curve would have been turned.
If you're in an at-risk group, COVID is really dangerous. The case fatality rate is around 3% in the US, and it's extremely contagious, so it's plausible to imagine a world where everybody got it.
I think with these numbers in mind, a little bit of 'pearl clutching' is warranted.
There was only ever a few weeks there that excess death count was above average (see above). We have been at or below average for several weeks now. When you factor that in with the fact that vast majority of Covid deaths (over 90%) had comorbidities, we can safely conclude this virus is not as deadly as it has been hyped up to be. Case fatality rate is nowhere near 3%. Most estimates have been 0.25% or lower. Vast majority of the population has natural immunity and remains asymptomatic even upon infection.
EDIT REPLY: No average excess deaths is never zero, as you can see in the chart down the page listed above on the CDC site. We have been down in the range of a bad flu season for a couple months now. Why is excess death count important? Because it disentangles the people who died from Covid from the people who died with Covid. If a 90 year old dies with Covid, and that same person would have statistically likely died from any disease including pneumonia or the flu, it's worth noting. It has substantial implications for society. That's why excess death count is worth looking at.
What is this supposed to mean? Excess death count is the amount above the expected, so average excess deaths is 0.
And every week from March 28 on has positive excess deaths, except the last week on the chart, which is unreliable becuase...
> We have been at or below average for several weeks now.
from the popup in your source when you highlight any datapoint on the chart: "Data in recent weeks are incomplete."
Same thing happening here?
How well did "herd immunity" work in WWI, where they sent the sick to the crowded hospitals?
It may be twice, possibly three times as deadly at the older end of the population, but it is nowhere near as deadly at the younger end - where flu is a much bigger killer.
It certainly isn't ten times as deadly overall.
Moving from blasé to hysterical helps nobody. We need to be rational.