Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by wintorez | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

wintorez

Would it be safer for people who has recovered to volunteer?

View on HN

There isn’t yet a test to say with certainty if you’ve had Covid-19. (EDIT: its coming, but isn’t available yet)

I’m fairly sure I had it, but can’t be 100% certain until the test for antibodies is available.

There are antibody tests. The UK just ordered 3.5 million of them

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/24/uk-buys-3500000-antibody-test...

Right, but they’re not available yet.

They are, there are dozens of suppliers. I don't know how quickly we will get all the 3.5m tests but in smaller quantities they are available now

there is a test, or at least I hope so because the UK has announced we've bought 3.5M of them https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51943612

I'm in the same boat and would like to know so I can volunteer. Even just taking vitals at a hospital, cleaning or transporting things. If I'm immune I would like to provide some firewall to other people, especially vulnerable. I think we have to wait at least 2-3 weeks before we can see any in Spain.

Not all the jobs are contact, some are delivering medicine or telephoning. Everyone can help in some way.

Delivering food basket to a neighbour doorstep with gloves on seems safe.

Don't quote me on this and I don't have a peer-reviewed paper as source, but as far as I know, people can get reinfected after being infected once.

We don't know that yet, but so far that seems unlikely.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/20/8190384...

https://www.genengnews.com/news/covid-19-reinfection-not-a-c...

At the time of me writing this comment, yours is light grey (due to downvotes I presume - is there any other possible cause?).

A statement that includes explicit acknowledgement of uncertainty should not be downvoted (unless there is another reason contained within), full stop. If this was /r/politics, fine, but it isn't.

This is causing harm to society that we have very little means of seeing (at least not without an investment of significant effort and time, something most people tend to avoid whenever possible).

I have deliberately not included acknowledgement of uncertainty, for two reasons.

In HN, insubstantial comments are downvoted, irrespective of politeness or reasonable disclaimers.

For instance, say, "I fully acknowledge that this is just bunk told in jest to small children, but perhaps the Moon could really be made of Roquefort cheese." is not a HN-worthy comment.

> In HN, insubstantial comments are downvoted, irrespective of politeness or reasonable disclaimers.

That is undoubtedly true. It may even be consistent with official site guidelines (which I don't think make any claim to be perfect - "perfect is the opposite of good" as they say).

Might this also be true: "In HN, comments are sometimes downvoted, irrespective of whether the comment is insubstantial, off-topic, or incorrect. The reasons behind this are incredibly complex."

This is misinformation, immunity works like it does for everything else. The virus is new to us, not magic.

Viruses can mutate, changing their protein coating so as not to be recognized by your immune system. Why do you think the common cold has not gone away, or why new flu shots are needed every season?

We simply do not know what this virus will do.

The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 came in waves, and they were different.

Immunity to coronaviruses does tend to fall within a year or so, but this is believed due to immune memory rather than viral mutation (coronaviruses have a modest mutation rate). This is a different mechanism than influenza. Subsequent reinfections are believed to be mild. A vaccine would provoke a longer immune memory by way of an adjuvant. Discussion of this in the TWIV podcast: http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-591/

Interesting. Is it misinformation if presented with the explicit disclaimer that I'm not sure about it and people should research themselves? I always understood misinformation as purposefully wrong and malicious information.

Worst case scenario (of people acting on my previous comment), people believe they can be reinfected and would practice further physical distancing. That does not seem malicious, but hey, I might be wrong.

Yes I think it is misinformation. It doesn't matter how much you hedge what you are saying, because the implication of you saying it means that you believe it.

Think about it this way, if your mother was concerned and you said, "Don't quote me on this, but as far as I know, you can be infected twice", you can bet your ass she would believe you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com