Thanks for a good review. Unsubstantiated fear is never rooted in evidence. But media makes its living by promoting fear (as do politicians), so the headlines will continue to do so, regardless of the lack of science. Media is in the business of selling advertising after all. Not in presenting evidence.
Yeah this whole situation is weird. This article was sort of meant to argue against what I've been seeing on both sides. The two articles above were suggesting that Omicron is what's making this virus now act like a cold/flu, when really I think that may have been the case all along. Natural immunity is likely to be superior than vaccinated (I haven't read the Qatar study yet), but that's likely to wane as well as we can see with other respiratory infections.
And it's that factor that I use to argue that many of those critical of these COVID measures probably should have been careful in assuming that a natural infection should lead to long-lasting immunity since respiratory infections don't appear to be good at that. So now we have people who may be arguing that the reinfections are some form of immune dysfunction that will kill us all off rather than this being the natural course of the virus (as natural as this virus can be).
Yes, right. I haven't had a bad flu in 25 years, but every few years I get mild symptoms, like my body is fighting it off. It makes sense, when we are exposed to a virus (or terrain theory, exposed to someone detoxing), if it gets past our nasal immune system (which is more likely the older we get), we will be infected by it to some extent, with or without symptoms.
Yes I don't think I've ever had bad flus but I've had them nonetheless. Like the fever kicks in and I get the muscle aches and mopey for one or two days then usually it's fine. I'm sure there's some evolutionary explanation for why this happens with respiratory infections unlike other viruses. Could be the genetic makeup, could be the tropism and area where the virus infects, and could be the generally mild nature. But regardless it should have taught us to be hesitant in thinking COVID may be one and done.
Instead, we should probably look into obtaining overall better health and make sure that we do well in that regard.
Just one limited comment: Is there anyone left who does NOT realize the fear in NOT "rooted in evidence" ? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice.......
Oh, apologies Paul I've heard of this expression before. I wanted to see in what context Ann was referring, but I suppose it's in how we were quick to make assumptions about this virus.
I think it's entirely reasonable to assume reinfection is possible, even likely, after a certain amount of time (the challenge trial provided makes the answer very obvious, at least for the flu). The question is how long are we highly protected after vaccination or infection? Hearing stories of people getting infected multiple times (true, symptomatic infection, not just a positive PCR) over the course of only a few months is odd. I personally only know a few people who have had multiple infections, and it coincided with new variants, which makes me think social media is making it sound more common than it really is. I was infected in January and just came through an outbreak at work unscathed, so for me, immunity is still holding at four months. The lack of seasonality of SARS-CoV-2 muddies the waters, many of us are getting significant exposures every 3-4 months as a new wave of cases comes along. Reinfection by the likes of the flu may seem uncommon because we're only really exposed for a small part of the year, so it doesn't matter if we have immunity for the six months where we're unlikely to encounter the virus. On the other hand, frequent exposures could work like boosters, leading to more lasting immunity. That could explain how some folks who have never really taken any precautions have managed to remain healthy after having COVID-19 very early in the pandemic.
Well the flu is interesting because we consider it to be seasonal due to the outbreaks, not the actual circulation I believe. Therefore several people are caught off guard when they believe they have the allergies in June when it may actually be the flu- it's just that we don't expect it to happen and we usually wouldn't test for either allergies or the flu anyways so we may just leave it be.
I do believe natural immunity is better and likely to last longer, but my argument is that we shouldn't expect natural immunity to be final deciding factor, such that it is a one and done deal. It's possible that natural immunity means less reinfection than vaccinated, uninfected people but again what exactly would "less reinfections" mean? What number would we put on that or would require some statistical modeling in order to figure that out?
It's also an issue of what we consider to be mild or severe. It's easy to argue that severe illness maybe doesn't mean your immunity is holding up, but if you get several mild infections is it because your immunity is holding up, or that other health factors as well as a relatively mild disease pathology suggest that it's a true reinfection but super mild?
Eugyppius made an interesting post on seasonal respiratory viruses. Influenza appears to basically be gone from April to July, meanwhile, rhinovirus runs rampant, possibly causing "seasonal allergies" for many people. Coronaviruses appear to be around at a low level all the time, with very high peaks near the end of winter. So, at least from that study, which admittedly only covered part of one year and used healthy people, it appears there's significant seasonality for respiratory viruses. SARS-CoV-2 has had major waves throughout 2021 and 2022, so it seems to be avoiding seasonality for the moment. Where I am in Maryland, the number of cases in May seemed to be higher than in January, though it's not reflected in the data because everyone I know was home testing when they fell ill.
I do agree that what's considered a reinfection is...open to interpretation. If someone develops sneezing for a couple of days that isn't contagious, but a high cycle PCR picks up the virus, that's far different from someone with a full-blown illness. A reinfection that results in some sniffles and is unlikely to be passed on to someone else may not be anything to concerned about and may be beneficial for bumping up our immunity. I'm more concerned about the cases of reinfection that are as severe as the first infection. But then we have the whole VAIDs hypothesis, and that even mild infections if frequent enough will start to deteriorate our pool of T cells. Have you read anything to suggest SARS-CoV-2 is more likely to wipe out T cells than other respiratory viruses?
So with many studies you have to get down to the methodology and parse the information, and I'll admit that that is something that I have a good deal of difficulty with.
But when first looking at that Israeli study I assumed that infection rates were just a measure of PCR tests, and if that were the case then a better argument would be that this is testing for viral load in the nose rather than an actual infection (this is without considering symptoms).
I think one of the problems is when we extrapolate too far from the data. I don't believe the results justify the vaccines leading to higher rates of infection on that measure alone. There's mucosal immunity to take into account, which the vaccines are likely not eliciting while natural immunity will. It's usually factors like that which should be used to provide context.
You'll also notice that infection appears to occur later on, which may suggest a relationship to waning immunity. Technically, the infected cohort would be counted as reinfected in this study while the vaccinated would just be considered infected, or "breakthrough" although I think that term is ridiculous because it assumes that infections should not happen.
I'll admit that my post had to take a few liberties, but it was more of a qualitative assessment that wanted to see whether reinfections should occur/is expected with respiratory infections, and whether this applies to SARS-COV2.
I also believe that natural immunity is superior, but the question remains as to how superior, and it's there where the talks of long-term, sterilizing naturally immunity may get a bit muddy.
Thanks for a good review. Unsubstantiated fear is never rooted in evidence. But media makes its living by promoting fear (as do politicians), so the headlines will continue to do so, regardless of the lack of science. Media is in the business of selling advertising after all. Not in presenting evidence.
Yeah this whole situation is weird. This article was sort of meant to argue against what I've been seeing on both sides. The two articles above were suggesting that Omicron is what's making this virus now act like a cold/flu, when really I think that may have been the case all along. Natural immunity is likely to be superior than vaccinated (I haven't read the Qatar study yet), but that's likely to wane as well as we can see with other respiratory infections.
And it's that factor that I use to argue that many of those critical of these COVID measures probably should have been careful in assuming that a natural infection should lead to long-lasting immunity since respiratory infections don't appear to be good at that. So now we have people who may be arguing that the reinfections are some form of immune dysfunction that will kill us all off rather than this being the natural course of the virus (as natural as this virus can be).
Yes, right. I haven't had a bad flu in 25 years, but every few years I get mild symptoms, like my body is fighting it off. It makes sense, when we are exposed to a virus (or terrain theory, exposed to someone detoxing), if it gets past our nasal immune system (which is more likely the older we get), we will be infected by it to some extent, with or without symptoms.
Yes I don't think I've ever had bad flus but I've had them nonetheless. Like the fever kicks in and I get the muscle aches and mopey for one or two days then usually it's fine. I'm sure there's some evolutionary explanation for why this happens with respiratory infections unlike other viruses. Could be the genetic makeup, could be the tropism and area where the virus infects, and could be the generally mild nature. But regardless it should have taught us to be hesitant in thinking COVID may be one and done.
Instead, we should probably look into obtaining overall better health and make sure that we do well in that regard.
Just one limited comment: Is there anyone left who does NOT realize the fear in NOT "rooted in evidence" ? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice.......
Hi Ann, apologies for my lack of confusion but could you clarify your comment? Maybe it's a slow day for me 😅
I remember this expression
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'd add: fool me, 3, 4 or more, and I'm brain dead
Oh, apologies Paul I've heard of this expression before. I wanted to see in what context Ann was referring, but I suppose it's in how we were quick to make assumptions about this virus.
I think it's entirely reasonable to assume reinfection is possible, even likely, after a certain amount of time (the challenge trial provided makes the answer very obvious, at least for the flu). The question is how long are we highly protected after vaccination or infection? Hearing stories of people getting infected multiple times (true, symptomatic infection, not just a positive PCR) over the course of only a few months is odd. I personally only know a few people who have had multiple infections, and it coincided with new variants, which makes me think social media is making it sound more common than it really is. I was infected in January and just came through an outbreak at work unscathed, so for me, immunity is still holding at four months. The lack of seasonality of SARS-CoV-2 muddies the waters, many of us are getting significant exposures every 3-4 months as a new wave of cases comes along. Reinfection by the likes of the flu may seem uncommon because we're only really exposed for a small part of the year, so it doesn't matter if we have immunity for the six months where we're unlikely to encounter the virus. On the other hand, frequent exposures could work like boosters, leading to more lasting immunity. That could explain how some folks who have never really taken any precautions have managed to remain healthy after having COVID-19 very early in the pandemic.
Well the flu is interesting because we consider it to be seasonal due to the outbreaks, not the actual circulation I believe. Therefore several people are caught off guard when they believe they have the allergies in June when it may actually be the flu- it's just that we don't expect it to happen and we usually wouldn't test for either allergies or the flu anyways so we may just leave it be.
I do believe natural immunity is better and likely to last longer, but my argument is that we shouldn't expect natural immunity to be final deciding factor, such that it is a one and done deal. It's possible that natural immunity means less reinfection than vaccinated, uninfected people but again what exactly would "less reinfections" mean? What number would we put on that or would require some statistical modeling in order to figure that out?
It's also an issue of what we consider to be mild or severe. It's easy to argue that severe illness maybe doesn't mean your immunity is holding up, but if you get several mild infections is it because your immunity is holding up, or that other health factors as well as a relatively mild disease pathology suggest that it's a true reinfection but super mild?
Eugyppius made an interesting post on seasonal respiratory viruses. Influenza appears to basically be gone from April to July, meanwhile, rhinovirus runs rampant, possibly causing "seasonal allergies" for many people. Coronaviruses appear to be around at a low level all the time, with very high peaks near the end of winter. So, at least from that study, which admittedly only covered part of one year and used healthy people, it appears there's significant seasonality for respiratory viruses. SARS-CoV-2 has had major waves throughout 2021 and 2022, so it seems to be avoiding seasonality for the moment. Where I am in Maryland, the number of cases in May seemed to be higher than in January, though it's not reflected in the data because everyone I know was home testing when they fell ill.
I do agree that what's considered a reinfection is...open to interpretation. If someone develops sneezing for a couple of days that isn't contagious, but a high cycle PCR picks up the virus, that's far different from someone with a full-blown illness. A reinfection that results in some sniffles and is unlikely to be passed on to someone else may not be anything to concerned about and may be beneficial for bumping up our immunity. I'm more concerned about the cases of reinfection that are as severe as the first infection. But then we have the whole VAIDs hypothesis, and that even mild infections if frequent enough will start to deteriorate our pool of T cells. Have you read anything to suggest SARS-CoV-2 is more likely to wipe out T cells than other respiratory viruses?
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/reminder-respiratory-viruses-infect
Here is an article making a case for the COVID vaccines promoting reinfections.
https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/covid-19-injections-are-screwing-922?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
So with many studies you have to get down to the methodology and parse the information, and I'll admit that that is something that I have a good deal of difficulty with.
But when first looking at that Israeli study I assumed that infection rates were just a measure of PCR tests, and if that were the case then a better argument would be that this is testing for viral load in the nose rather than an actual infection (this is without considering symptoms).
I think one of the problems is when we extrapolate too far from the data. I don't believe the results justify the vaccines leading to higher rates of infection on that measure alone. There's mucosal immunity to take into account, which the vaccines are likely not eliciting while natural immunity will. It's usually factors like that which should be used to provide context.
You'll also notice that infection appears to occur later on, which may suggest a relationship to waning immunity. Technically, the infected cohort would be counted as reinfected in this study while the vaccinated would just be considered infected, or "breakthrough" although I think that term is ridiculous because it assumes that infections should not happen.
I'll admit that my post had to take a few liberties, but it was more of a qualitative assessment that wanted to see whether reinfections should occur/is expected with respiratory infections, and whether this applies to SARS-COV2.
I also believe that natural immunity is superior, but the question remains as to how superior, and it's there where the talks of long-term, sterilizing naturally immunity may get a bit muddy.
Nice article by the way.