 |
|
That seems like a pretty poorly written article to me.
Posted on: July 10, 2020 at 19:01:56 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72858
Member For:
21.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
She's basing her theory off of a study on antibody tests. As has been discussed on here before that isn't a reliable way to estimate how many people have been exposed to the virus, nor how many will have a stronger defense because of that if they are exposed in the future. Antibodies are just one part of our body's immune defense system and they also may not always be detected in those tests.
Fauci has already said that almost certainly people who have already been infected and have recovered will have some level of enhanced immunity.
As to the extrapolated hypothesis from that antibody study:
The study of more than 60,000 people estimates that around just 5% of the Spanish population has developed antibodies, the medical journal the Lancet reported.
And yet a recent CDC estimate was a .26% infection death rate. If they are correct in that estimate, their most recent, then Spain has had approximately 10,923,462 people infected or about 23.3% of their population.
Over 23% would certainly be more consistent with the data coming in. Their deaths per day peaked on April 2nd at 961 deaths, and it has been dropping ever since. They have been in single digits for quite some time now. Look at the graphs of new infections and new deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/
A similar pattern has been seen worldwide. Many countries have a rapid rise in new cases per day, then with a bit of a delay a similar percentage rise in new deaths per day. It eventually peaks, and then starts heading steadily downwards.
Herd immunity is real and it works.
On another note, she writes:
Around 70% to 90% of a population needs to be immune to protect the uninfected.
But that isn't as set in stone as she makes out. I've seen other medical sources saying that herd immunity may be achieved in the 45% range or so. The rate of spread obviously begins to slow as the percentage of the population that has already been exposed to it rises.
Also, she warns that:
Common colds are caused by similar viruses and the body's immune response fades quickly to those.
But what medical information is she using indicating that there is little to no protection from prior infections? Just because people tend to get colds every year? Those might be from a different virus every year. Also some people mistake allergies for having a cold. Is there evidence that people get sick from the same virus over and over? Or that if they do get a 2nd or 3rd infection that there is no protection whatsoever... that it is just as bad every time as the first time?
In any event, there's a big difference between influenza viruses and coronaviruses in that regard:
It will take some time, but rest assured: a coronavirus vaccine is coming, and it will work.
Peter Kolchinsky
https://www.city-journal.org/coronavirus-vaccine
Fauci has already said that almost certainly people who have already been infected and have recovered will have some level of enhanced immunity.
As to the extrapolated hypothesis from that antibody study:
The study of more than 60,000 people estimates that around just 5% of the Spanish population has developed antibodies, the medical journal the Lancet reported.
And yet a recent CDC estimate was a .26% infection death rate. If they are correct in that estimate, their most recent, then Spain has had approximately 10,923,462 people infected or about 23.3% of their population.
Over 23% would certainly be more consistent with the data coming in. Their deaths per day peaked on April 2nd at 961 deaths, and it has been dropping ever since. They have been in single digits for quite some time now. Look at the graphs of new infections and new deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/
A similar pattern has been seen worldwide. Many countries have a rapid rise in new cases per day, then with a bit of a delay a similar percentage rise in new deaths per day. It eventually peaks, and then starts heading steadily downwards.
Herd immunity is real and it works.
On another note, she writes:
Around 70% to 90% of a population needs to be immune to protect the uninfected.
But that isn't as set in stone as she makes out. I've seen other medical sources saying that herd immunity may be achieved in the 45% range or so. The rate of spread obviously begins to slow as the percentage of the population that has already been exposed to it rises.
Also, she warns that:
Common colds are caused by similar viruses and the body's immune response fades quickly to those.
But what medical information is she using indicating that there is little to no protection from prior infections? Just because people tend to get colds every year? Those might be from a different virus every year. Also some people mistake allergies for having a cold. Is there evidence that people get sick from the same virus over and over? Or that if they do get a 2nd or 3rd infection that there is no protection whatsoever... that it is just as bad every time as the first time?
In any event, there's a big difference between influenza viruses and coronaviruses in that regard:
It will take some time, but rest assured: a coronavirus vaccine is coming, and it will work.
Peter Kolchinsky
https://www.city-journal.org/coronavirus-vaccine
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
That seems like a pretty poorly written article to me. - JeffB MU - 7/10 19:01:56