There's a difference between being exposed to dirt and being exposed to viral diseases, though. Playing outside in the leaves will likely trigger healthy immune responses. Contracting COVID-19 may lead to long term health issues.
Do you have a link to the data for the claim about it being a serious illness that causes a better immune system? My understanding has been that exposure to a variety of pathogens and minor illnesses would be sufficient.
See https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/06/daycare.kids/index.htm... for a random news article reporting on a similar result only with kids getting sick in daycare. Being exposed to diseases early builds immunity later.
All complex systems, us included, have bathtub curves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
1. 28 year olds, who were exposed to a prior influenza pandemic during an early age window, disproportionately died during the 1918 pandemic. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-actuarial-jo...
2. Measles destroys prior immune memory. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03324-7
It may but more likely to make you immune from covid-19 and similar virus.
It’s certainly possible but to put that in perspective, here’s a study showing 98% of people (self-reporting) were symptom free after 12 weeks.
Is that any worse than other respiratory viruses?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v...
Here’s a Taiwanese children’s show from three years ago encouraging mask wearing: https://youtu.be/qXaD871hXnc?t=18s
And IIRC, the hygiene hypothesis mostly has to do with autoimmune diseases and our immune systems not learning how to differentiate between serious threats and harmless exposure.
Uh-huh. And what percentage of people who contract have "long term health issues"? This is just more scaremongering based on self-reporting and anecdotes.
https://abc17news.com/news/national-world/2021/01/12/three-q...
N = 1,700+
On the other hand, while that risk is not that widespread, that still will mean millions of affected people.
“Around 10% of patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus remain unwell beyond three weeks, and a smaller proportion for months (see box [1]).[7] This is based on the UK COVID Symptom Study, in which people enter their ongoing symptoms on a smartphone app. This percentage is lower than that cited in many published observational studies,[8][9] whose denominator populations were those admitted to hospital or attending specialist clinics. A recent US study found that only 65% of people had returned to their previous level of health 14-21 days after a positive test.[10]”
When I had the flu or pneumonia in the past I could still feel effects over a month later.
But flu should not cause long term effects normally.
> Researchers don’t understand exactly how the disease might trigger Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, or whether the cases are temporary or permanent. But 14 percent of those with severe covid-19 developed a form of the disorder, one analysis found.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/01/covid-new-o...
the 1918 flu, which killed 10-20% of the infected, was worthy of that kind of avoidance response, not this virus that kills much less than 1% (and maims far fewer, contrary to your claim). the tiresome messaging (fear strangers and non-conformists; trust our "science", not theirs) of politicians and sympathetic media played this pandemic for maximum political & economic gain, not minimizing impact. it's disgusting.
All of which is actually incidental to the point I was making, that the hygiene hypothesis is about exposure to dirt and pathogens that prime your immune system for healthy responses. You can have healthy exposure to dirt without exposure to whole classes of viral diseases. No one’s going to say you have to catch Ebola to solve the hygiene hypothesis, for example.
as for your second point, we're exposed to coronaviruses of all sorts already (viruses that have spike proteins)--the relevant class of viral disease here--and that's what's likely to have conferred mild/asymptomatic cases in the majority of the infected.
That's one hypothesis.
Don't particular populations already have a degree of natural herd immunity to viruses which are commonly found in their proximity, compared to populations on the other side of the world who do not?
Like how Europeans brought their diseases, which they had built up immunity against, to the Americas which then decimated the indigenous populations.
Could we hypothesize that many Asians have a stronger natural immunity to covid19?
Regardless, New Zealand is clearly not an Asian country.
New Zealand is obviously a bit of a red herring considering it is an affluent island nation with a low population density.
The top HN comment of any article with more than 10 comments on it will always almost have more content and less fluff than the great barrington declaration.
Just to save everyone time:
>The declaration calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed to resume their normal lives, working normally at their usual workplaces rather than from home, socializing in bars and restaurants, and gathering at sporting and cultural events.
>The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis.
>It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial
Here is a challenge for you: participate in discussions for a whole week without changing the subject as soon as your claims are called into question. You began with the Great Barrington Declaration; you cannot simply Gish gallop on Hacker News.