Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 426 posts

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#411

Post by jonnycomputer »

procombo wrote: post #400
jonnycomputer wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you are recovering well. Honestly not sure what your point is. Are you saying that for someone who is infected that the probability of not giving it to others around you is not very high? The gist of what I'm saying is that even if you think that your chances of dying, or even inconvenience, from the virus is extremely low, your ability to control its spread to others is also pretty low. Meaning that you can b…

Initially my point was to correct misinformation. I added my own history as an anecdote. There's a lot to say about Covid-19. We've learned a lot about it since the start. But objectively, its transmissibility is not what was feared. So the scare tactics about that -today- is wrong. Covid-19 can be deadly. All people and politicians should have taken it seriously. I don't fault people for being enthusiastic in their…

I still don't see the misinformation. I said, that it was "almost impossible not to give it to others". I said the virus was extremely transmissible. It is. With an R0 of approximately 5.7 [[1]]. I didn't say anything about when or how transmission happens.

There was a moment where we thought our daughter had the virus. It became quite clear how futile it was to avoid her infecting everyone else in the house. Fortunately for everyone, it was something else.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002251932...

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#412

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

toolz wrote: post #234
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient. > false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals Ok, so it sounds like you're making the argument that a patient, who has COVID in their system, but is asymptomatic and tests positive would be considered a false positive, even though they can still spread the…

Please cite your source that positives at >40ct can still be infectious since I've already provided evidence strongly disagreeing with your assertion here.

You supplied a single study for evidence and then an imgur link.

I wasn't even aware that there was doubt that asymptomatic spread was a thing. I realize now the issue - I believe that someone who has a COVID 19 infection, symptomatic or not, is someone infected with COVID 19, and you've decided that they aren't until they show symptoms. How do you feel about HIV?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asympt...

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#413

Post by toolz »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #412
toolz wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please cite your source that positives at >40ct can still be infectious since I've already provided evidence strongly disagreeing with your assertion here.

You supplied a single study for evidence and then an imgur link. I wasn't even aware that there was doubt that asymptomatic spread was a thing. I realize now the issue - I believe that someone who has a COVID 19 infection, symptomatic or not, is someone infected with COVID 19, and you've decided that they aren't until they show symptoms. How do you feel about HIV? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/full…

At no point did I say or suggest people not showing symptoms are incapable of infecting someone with cv19. I'm not sure where you've come to the conclusion this conversation was ever about asymptomatic spread. PCR tests have nothing to do with symptoms.

However, I am very familiar with the study you've linked. If you can even call it a study - it's more like a fantasy model based on the data of other studies the researchers appear to not even have read! They cite numbers from multiple papers that can't be found in those papers anywhere. There might not be a more embarrassing study I've read than this one.

There first citation to Lee et. al. claims the paper found 100% infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals, yes 100%. here's a quote from the actual paper

> Although the high viral load we observed in asymptomatic patients raises a distinct possibility of a risk for transmission, our study was not designed to determine this

(you'll note at nowhere in the paper is there anything resembling 100% spread in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic...this number is purely fabricated from thin air)

another citation from that paper is a citation to char et. al. that says the paper claims 40-140% infectiousness for asymptomatic individuals...again let's read the actual paper they cite

here's a quote from the paper

> In the household setting, symptomatic case-patients had 2.7 times the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to their close contacts, compared with asymptomatic and presymptomatic case-patients

so the above paper deals with household settings and finds roughly 1/3 in a household setting...this paper very generously makes up numbers again to cite to this paper...embarrassing.

the cite mc evoy et. al. as having a finding of 40-70% which they got right! horray!

so 2/3 papers they use to determine their asymptomatic infectious number for their modeling are just garbage citations that don't resemble the findings of the source paper at all

this paper is worse than useless.

again, their model sets the infectiousness rate of asymptomatic individuals based on 3 citations - 2 of which are fabricated...garbage...utter garbage.

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#414

Post by toolz »

thebruce87m wrote: post #403
toolz wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect, they are absolutely counted as covid deaths early on and will likely be re-categorized later, your article even says as much - later corrections are easy for car crashes, but they are not easy for misdiagnosis either way the context of the conversation is about early trends so my point still stands and is validated by the article you've linked, even.

Misdiagnosis can go either way, not always in favour of covid. Early trends showed severe undercounting when later compared to excess mortality, probably due to low testing capacity at the start. See here for some more information on the undercounting: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... You’ll have to point out in the previous article where it agrees with your point on car crashes counted…

your linked article simply shows gross deaths above baseline are not entirely accounted for by covid - that's not surprising in the least when you disrupt the entire world you'll have deaths from the disruption alongside covid. It makes no attempt at showing covid is undercounted.

If anything I would use that as an argument to show lockdowns may very well be doing substantial harm and causing massive death.

This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that not a single country in the top 30 excess mortality during the pandemic is a country that avoided stringent lockdowns.

Correlation != causation of course, but it's a logical thought to investigate and there's plenty more evidence towards lockdown's doing more harm than good (considering the evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking)

as for your request - I never said the article agrees with my point about car crashes counted as covid deaths, I said it agrees with me that the correction happens later.

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#415

Post by toolz »

thebruce87m wrote: post #392
toolz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

covid deaths are labeled based on positive test results (and clinical diagnosis) so they will always move together regardless of specificity or sensitivity here's a study showing above CT 32 not a single live virus was able to be cultured [1] [1] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... (image from the study) https://i.imgur.com/AaZZIXM.png

We also have excess deaths to measure covid deaths against: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... Some are graphed here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ You can see that some countries that did lock down, e.g. Norway didn’t have significant excess mortality so this can dispel any myths about lockdowns themselves causing excess mortality. I’m sure some people will argue that the exce…

norway locked down with less stringency than sweden - you can see that using the only objective measurements of lockdown stringency (that I know of) in the oxford stringency index

I'm not sure why you would state something completely incorrect so confidently - if you had in fact been arguing with people over that point I would expect you to have come across the most basic data behind your point.

https://i.imgur.com/obQNg3o.png

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index?ta...

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#416

Post by jf22 »

JPKab wrote: post #195
jf22 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>given that the immunity you get from having the disease is always better than what you'd get from a vaccine This is false. Stop spreading misinformation.

You don't have the authority to decide what is misinformation and what isn't. If you disagree with it counter it with your own facts but you are not the speech police.

Who are the speech police and who has the authority?

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#417

Post by thebruce87m »

toolz wrote: post #414
thebruce87m wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misdiagnosis can go either way, not always in favour of covid. Early trends showed severe undercounting when later compared to excess mortality, probably due to low testing capacity at the start. See here for some more information on the undercounting: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... You’ll have to point out in the previous article where it agrees with your point on car crashes counted…

your linked article simply shows gross deaths above baseline are not entirely accounted for by covid - that's not surprising in the least when you disrupt the entire world you'll have deaths from the disruption alongside covid. It makes no attempt at showing covid is undercounted. If anything I would use that as an argument to show lockdowns may very well be doing substantial harm and causing massive death. This hypo…

You can easily disprove the “lockdowns doing more harm than good” from an excess mortality point of view by looking at countries such as Norway, which had had lockdowns but no significant excess mortality.

I also don’t understand the “evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking” line. We now have multiple waves in multiple countries. My country (Scotland) specifically has peaks in infections that are then followed by falls as a result of lockdowns. In fact we are now seeing infections rise as we ease restrictions again. These falls go against normal seasonal behaviours for respiratory illnesses, so it’s clear that something else is causing the fall - the lockdown!

The fact that a virus needs contact with people to spread is literally virus 101, and therefore limiting contact suppresses transmission - how do you come to the conclusion that this is not the case?

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#418

Post by toolz »

thebruce87m wrote: post #417
toolz wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your linked article simply shows gross deaths above baseline are not entirely accounted for by covid - that's not surprising in the least when you disrupt the entire world you'll have deaths from the disruption alongside covid. It makes no attempt at showing covid is undercounted. If anything I would use that as an argument to show lockdowns may very well be doing substantial harm and causing massive death. This hypo…

You can easily disprove the “lockdowns doing more harm than good” from an excess mortality point of view by looking at countries such as Norway, which had had lockdowns but no significant excess mortality. I also don’t understand the “evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking” line. We now have multiple waves in multiple countries. My country (Scotland) specifically has peaks in infections that are then follow…

I responded to one of your other comments saying the same thing - norway did not have "lockdowns" like much of the developed world...sweden had more stringent lockdowns than norway. Either way a single datapoint doesn't prove anything, but you're wrong on even your single datapoint.

Lockdowns don't limit transmission because, in the US, only 40% of the economy shut down and traveling metrics didn't go down for very long. It's not that social distancing can't work - it's that it didn't work for likely very complex reasons.

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#419

Post by thebruce87m »

toolz wrote: post #415
thebruce87m wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also have excess deaths to measure covid deaths against: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... Some are graphed here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ You can see that some countries that did lock down, e.g. Norway didn’t have significant excess mortality so this can dispel any myths about lockdowns themselves causing excess mortality. I’m sure some people will argue that the exce…

norway locked down with less stringency than sweden - you can see that using the only objective measurements of lockdown stringency (that I know of) in the oxford stringency index I'm not sure why you would state something completely incorrect so confidently - if you had in fact been arguing with people over that point I would expect you to have come across the most basic data behind your point. https://i.imgur.com/o…

Your assertions don't fit with the data you shared. The Y axis shows strictness and Norway has peaks that are higher and therefore stricter. I suspect you know this given you tried to double-down on it immediately.

If we are playing "No true Scotsman" with the lockdowns and dragging Sweden in, how would you explain Greece vs Sweden?

Excess Deaths per 100k [0]

Sweden: 102 Greece: 38

There is simply no compelling evidence that “lockdowns doing more harm than good” from an excess mortality point of view.

Excess Mortality source:

[0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...

Your favoured metric of lockdown severity:

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index?ta...

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#420

Post by thebruce87m »

toolz wrote: post #418
thebruce87m wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily disprove the “lockdowns doing more harm than good” from an excess mortality point of view by looking at countries such as Norway, which had had lockdowns but no significant excess mortality. I also don’t understand the “evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking” line. We now have multiple waves in multiple countries. My country (Scotland) specifically has peaks in infections that are then follow…

I responded to one of your other comments saying the same thing - norway did not have "lockdowns" like much of the developed world...sweden had more stringent lockdowns than norway. Either way a single datapoint doesn't prove anything, but you're wrong on even your single datapoint. Lockdowns don't limit transmission because, in the US, only 40% of the economy shut down and traveling metrics didn't go down for very l…

I have replied to your assertions in the other comment thread.
Post reply on HN