S
sodthisforfun
The Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals out there, certainly not 'lazy journalism'.
So, another lockdown.
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
It is still just a magazine for doctors ,as I pointed out ,the case it quotes as an example of someone being reinfected with Covid has been debunked.
The consensus among scientists is that people who recover from Covid do have a level of immunity from reinfection.
There are always going to be exceptions to that rule.
You said it was 100% or 0%
And criticised me for pointing out that error.
Here you are saying it's "a level of".......i.e. A range
You are all over the place with this
Sorry who do you think has debunked a Lancet article? In scientific circles that means the paper has been withdrawn.
You ranting at your computer screen doesn't count.
Also, where is this supposed consensus captured? Are there surveys of virologists that have been done? Or are you making things up again Arnold?
UK immunology consortium is one among many who have confirmed what most scientists already know.
People like you should have more sense than spreading Covid scare stories on the internet.
https://www.ft.com/content/bcd20087-a7cc-4277-a628-9e2d25a702f0
https://www.uk -cic.org/
Last edited:
If you are immune to Coronavirus that means you are 100% protected, if you catch Coronavirus then you have zero immunity.
level of immunity refers to the length of time any immunity may last.
Vinty's article say "the first in the world" meaning nobody else supports the claim
It also says it has not been peer-reviewed meaning it is not fit to be published in an authoritative journal.
It may or may not be confirmed, and is described as "promising"
It's great, and unsurprising, news that a previously-infected survivor has some level of resistance for some period. This however does not mean that it will be beneficial to allow the disease to rampage through the population, with hundreds of thousands of victims at any one time.
The article says "Other research has shown that antibody levels often decline quickly after Covid-19 patients have recovered" and "In contrast, antibody levels in some people had dwindled to undetectable levels within six months." Perhaps those are the parts vinty wanted to draw to our attention.
It's sweet to see Vinty has been able to find one newspaper article with some, but not all, of the content that he likes.
Vinty incorrectly believes that immunity resistance can be only 100% or 0%
He uses the word "level" but does not know what it means.
He avoids consideration of "new variants" of disease.
It also says it has not been peer-reviewed meaning it is not fit to be published in an authoritative journal.
It may or may not be confirmed, and is described as "promising"
It's great, and unsurprising, news that a previously-infected survivor has some level of resistance for some period. This however does not mean that it will be beneficial to allow the disease to rampage through the population, with hundreds of thousands of victims at any one time.
The article says "Other research has shown that antibody levels often decline quickly after Covid-19 patients have recovered" and "In contrast, antibody levels in some people had dwindled to undetectable levels within six months." Perhaps those are the parts vinty wanted to draw to our attention.
It's sweet to see Vinty has been able to find one newspaper article with some, but not all, of the content that he likes.
Vinty incorrectly believes that immunity resistance can be only 100% or 0%
He uses the word "level" but does not know what it means.
He avoids consideration of "new variants" of disease.
To be fair, didn't Vinty just say "immunity either exists or it doesn't" which must be true?
You introduced 100% or 0%.
And, there's more to immunity than antibodies, I seem to recall (although am willing to be corrected).
https://www.immunology.org/news/cor...does not mean,against future infection is key.
https://www.immunology.org/news/cor...does not mean,against future infection is key.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334
WTF is really going on?
Why don't they just put the tanks on the streets?
WTF is really going on?
Why don't they just put the tanks on the streets?
D
durhamplumber
What does it matter.if they die first or secondinfection..1M dead!
I see that in the Lancet article vinty mentioned, it says the person who was infected twice was much more ill the second time, and the strain was a different one
so his immunity didn't do him much good.
I wonder what the point was, that vinty hoped to make.
so his immunity didn't do him much good.
I wonder what the point was, that vinty hoped to make.
They aren't disputing that you can have Covid-19 twice. They're saying they have evidence for T Cell involvement as well as antibody.
It doesn't address how long immunity lasts, although it is a step in that direction.
Nor does it address if you can have infections from two different strains.
So, as far as I can tell the Lancet article still stands
As if it couldn't get any more badly handled, the government really are not doing themselves any favours, it appears.
As TM (sort of) put it, "Rather than the data driving the policy, the policy is driving the data."
