Mild Covid-19 induces lasting antibody protection | Hacker News Reader

Mild Covid-19 induces lasting antibody protection

medicine.wustl.edu

108 pointsdsr1294 comments

It insane how people/media outlets simply ignored what has happened in our past.

We had many pandemics. Why should this virus now be radically different? Our immune system would not have survived so long if we kept getting critically sick from virii our system has seen before.

Let me give you a counter example. A friend of mine is only 25 years old and fit (resting heart rate below 70). They got infected with Covid twice within 2 months. They tested positive on a PCR test. The second infection was significantly worse and they are constantly out of breath and struggling with pneumonia.

Do not underestimate this disease. Especially the new Indian variant.

Having antibodies is not necessarily the same as being protected. Especially in the light of variants and the fact that antibodies can wane over time.

That’s really sad about your friend, but you’re using one anecdotal case to scare people about covid. Young fit people have died from the flu before. If we’re going to make big decisions, they need to be rational ones based on data, not emotional pleas from individuals.

As you say, antibodies != protection necessarily. And asymptomatic people don't have antibodies from the start though they do after infection albeit without symptoms. They do have T-cells which offer protection in these cases. But the status of one's immune system is critical so adopting advice in this department is paramount.

PCR tests are not a reliable method to determine infection. Is it possible that your friend had a pneumonia and it just shows on the test?

Why wouldn't PCR tests be a reliable test for infection?

A PCR test indicates the presence of viral genetic material but that isn't sufficient to diagnose an active infection. A patient who has recovered from infection can continue to test positive for an extended period, especially if a high number of cycles are used.

I would assume the number of cycles is pre-determined. Not that I checked, so. But again, how is that a bad thing? You check for the virus by looking fo viral DNA. Good, you found it in suffcient numbers to conclude the person is infected. Solid approach. A lot of stuff is checked for indirectly. Reading too much into that just shows an incredible degree of ignorance.

The number of cycles can be configured on the test machines. That number is pre-determined for each particular test protocol. The presence of viral DNA doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of an active infection or live virus that can spread to others. This isn't good or bad, it's just how the test works.

Pretty much what I thought then. And each result should then have a confidence interval attached to it that the result "patient infected" is correct. Also, distinguishing between "viral DNA present" and "virus present" seems like a lot of nitpicking to me. You can't have the one without the other.

You're really missing the point. There is no way to calculate a confidence interval for the presence of an active infection based solely on a PCR test. That is a yes or no judgment call made by a clinician based on multiple objective and subjective factors. Recovered patients often continue to test positive even long after the infection has cleared and they are no longer infected. Thus a PCR test on it's own isn't a reliable way to detect re-infection.

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-diagnosis

So now we are talking about re-infection, not about simple infections anymore. But ok, I'll bite.

Every clinical testing procedure has to be approved. Every used machine has to be approved and regularly calibrated. So you don't need a confidence intervall for each test, just one for the used procedure / equipment combination. That combination is tested and approved. Are the reults perfect? Of course not, no test is. And no, how many cycles and how the test is conducted is not up to the lab tech. And for re-infection, that's were you need a doctor to properly diagnose, don't you? And that doctor would use PCR test results as part of his diagnosis.

Not parent, but there has been a popular alternative facts campaign that aims to discredit PCR tests, partially on misunderstanding how PCR tests work (e.g. ct values, false positives etc.) and partially on technicalities that PCR tests show the existence of virus DNA, which in theory could also be present without the host developing an infection.

Google Corman-Drosten review if you want to go down this rabbit hole, it's both fascinating and horrifying to see the state of the art of pseudo-science.

I wasn't sure if it was that, I had my doubts so. What I saw from that "discussion" so far is enough for me to stay as far away from it as possible.

Google "PCR false positive" "PCR false negative" for some sources. Also, there's the whole cycle issue, by changing the number of cycles, you can switch between a pandemic and endemic situation almost at will.

Every test has false positives and false negatives. From pregnancy tests to HIV tests. Doesn't mean the test is unreliable, does it? No idea what your second point is supposed to be about.

Depends on your standard for reliable.

PCR test when cycled toward a certain number just to gain accuracy yet loses its accuracy when cycled too much: PCR can only detect active infection. Some COVID PCR tests have fairly bothersome false positive and false negative percentage (enough to make its own statistic to be that 3rd axiom (of lies, damn lies, and …): it’s the bane of shifty government policies that is being based on this type of test, PCR.

Antibody test detects past and current infection through T-cell memory of past encounters and that too is limited by how long the “learned” imprint of the virus can last (as short as 6-month by some “peer-reviewed” papers on COVID antibody memory. I would be most pressed to see what this aspect of duration of COVID-related T-cell memory turn out to be (but these data are sparse and not quite available to most of us). Antibody is the costlier test of two (also not being more used toward formulation of government policies as I think they should be).

Whereas, Smallpox, DTP and polio vaccine memory have established their multi-decade reliability.

A year ago we didn't know how "bad" that new virus was; now we don't know how bad any new variant can be.

There have been many pandemics, and many people have died; we try to prevent many people from dying.

Some pandemics have not much "survive" or end: Ebola, HIV, ... so we better double-check any new one before being ok with it.

> so we better double-check any new one before being ok with it.

This. No government or institution should downplay seriousness of pandemic even if virus is not as deadly as Ebola.

Nor should it upplay it.

In the case of Covid-19, I'd say we tend to downplay it by default: we're not much afraid of it because of its low mortality rate, so we could (and did) easily overlook it's extremely high infection rate.

As a result of how easily it spreads, Covid-19 likely caused many more deaths than many otherwise much scarier diseases, including Ebola.

COVID-19 is statistically about as dangerous as the Hong Kong Flu in the 1950s, if you look at the IFR instead of the CFR (It's been obvious since they started doing serology tests that the COVID-19 CFR is wildly off from the IFR, and it's a much milder virus than advertised). The only difference is the world population today is much larger so many more people have died.

Its mortality rate puts an upper bound on how bad it is. Even if everyone would have been infected without any measures, saving at most ~1% of the population isn't worth stealing more than a year of everyone's life.

Those who die lose on average 10 years of life. Times 1%, that's about a month. The discrepancy of how much we've sacrificed to how little we've gained is absurd.

You are forgetting very important consequences of letting the pandemic as we know it being uncontrolled:

if "everyone" get infected with covid, the hospitals get incredibly overwhelmed, as well as many other services like ambulances, oxygen, funerals, ... this is recipe for chaos and much more deaths: much less treatment possible for other illnesses even not so dangerous ones at first, difficult disposal of bodies leading to other health problems, much less medical staff available over time (they die too!), ... many more people would actually die because of this.

But also who will choose who gets treatment and who doesn't? It's easy behind a screen to click on a button and say I'm ok with it, but it's different when there is a human in front of you, when there are relatives, ... and even if you are not the person who makes the choice, think about how statistics are tricky: 1 person dying out of 1'000'000 is not much on a spreadsheet, until that one is someone you know or love.

Finally, it would mean not so decent deaths for many who can't get a bed or oxygen: in corridors? in the streets? suffering from respiratory troubles? Would you accept that your parents or spouse die like this?

These are actually happening in some places right now, think about it, these people didn't choose the situation, it ain't pretty, we are lucky.

Please stop the "someone you know or love" emotionalizing, it makes rational discussion impossible by making people overestimate risks.

Anyway:

> many more people would actually die because of this.

Numbers, please?

> 1 person dying out of 1'000'000 is not much on a spreadsheet, until that one is someone you know or love.

...with a probability of 1/1000000, which still isn't much. Nothing tricky about it.

The point is, without proper care, the mortality rate of this virus raises from 1% to 5%, give or take. And that's without taking into account the long term consequences of the survivors (I've heard for instance that about 10% or so of the infected get a long, version of the disease, that render them unable to work for months).

Now the probabilities are rather low because we make sure the virus doesn't spread too much (we lock everything down whenever it does). If we didn't however, we'd infect most of the population, hospitals would be overwhelmed, and we'd end up culling more than 3% of the world's population. Mostly elderly for sure, but still.

Even if we stick to actual numbers, let me give you the example of France. I'm r where I live, and the crisis was… let's be prudent and say "not expertly managed". We have over 109K deaths now. With our population, that's about 1.7 deaths per thousand people. Most of us here know some people who watched a close one die. It is much.

> The point is, without proper care, the mortality rate of this virus raises from 1% to 5%, give or take.

Incorrect. That's the CFR. The actual mortality rate (IFR) is between 0.5-1%. And that's without any useful treatment.

> And that's without taking into account the long term consequences of the survivors

There is no evidence that these aren't extremely rare.

Of course everyone is panicking when they're misinformed like that!

Have we actually shortened the life of everyone by one year, on average? We put rather severe restrictions in place, and not everyone were affected the same way¹ (which is not fair, I know). My point is, it's not like we put everyone in suspended animation for a year, or instantly aged everyone by a year, or made the life of everyone miserable enough for that year that it wasn't worth living. The effects of how we handled this crisis are real, but a full year of lost life per person on average seems like a stretch.

[1]: to give but one example, unemployment kills (more precisely, it's a risk factor). Rising unemployment causes additional deaths. Not a huge amount, but a measurable one for sure. We effectively killed some people to save others.

No. Because you have no idea how that same virus is going to mutate when billions of people are going to get infected.

The seriousness of pandemic plays major role in containing it.

Not having an idea how a virus is going to mutate means you have no evidence that it is going to mutate in a problematic way.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, eh?

Prepare for the worst with reasonable effort, yes.

In hind side you’re always smarter. There are many diseases that have Antibody Dependend Enhancement (ADE), which makes you get much more sick at second infection. For a long time, some would even say still, it was not only unclear whether SARS-Cov-2 has ADE but the clinical history in bad cases pointed towards it.

Yes sure, this is theoretically possible. But what happens if we use Bayesian reasoning?

- We already have 4 other Corona Viruses endemic in the human population

- More than 80 percent of confirmed coronavirus cases are not severe (probably because T-Cell induced immunity is working very efficiently)

- Reported reinfections are minimal

I think these priors alone reduce the probability for ADE drastically. Don't you?

This is not a random experiment, so statistical methods (Bayesian or other) do not apply. I really wish that this meme of throwing around big words like "Bayesian reasoning" or "Priors" completely out of context will disappear at some point.

Sorry, if I used it out of context.

I was under the impression that virus formation (copying, mutations and all that) was indeed a statistical process. But maybe I am wrong?

Statistical modelling assumes that the observations can in some way be described as random samples drawn from an (unknown) probability distribution. One can then try to estimate properties of that distribution using the observed data.

For example, one can assume a gaussian distribution and estimate its mean and width using the mean and standard deviation of the data. Bayesian inference aims to directly extract the underlying probability distribution without assuming a fixed functional form.

In any case, one should be extremely skeptical when someone tries to apply such methods to sparse or cherry-picked data. Including SARS-CoV-2, there are only seven coronaviruses that are known to infect humans. This is an extremely small number to do statistics with.

Of course one can make educated guesses based on experiences with previous similar viruses (such as SARS-CoV). But using the language of Bayesian inference for this is just cargo cult science in my opinion.

Having 6 previous coronaviruses allows you to construct a prior with mean and variance. Gaussian distributions assume the least about a distribution. I'm not sure why you are so against using information/bits that we already know to be true in trying to make predictions about SARS-CoV-2. Humans do bayesian reasoning all the time, albeit in a much less formal fashion. There is no cargo culting here.

Of course you can construct all kinds of interesting distributions with any random piece of data. This doesn't mean that it makes any sense to do so.

Pretending that human reasoning is somehow equivalent to Bayesian inference (and abusing domain-specific terminology like "prior") is exactly the kind of cargo culting that Feynman wrote about. If there is no actual mathematical model and software implementation, you are not doing Bayesian inference (and the airplanes will just not land).

I am unsure what you are suggesting instead.

Should we ignore everything we know from the past?

In hindsight*

As in, looking behind you

There is a huge difference between assuming or believing something and actually knowing it.

(I am talking about scientific knowledge that other knowledge can - and hopefully will - be build upon.)

Only if you're of the mindset that any risk, no matter how small, is unacceptable.

> (I am talking about scientific knowledge that other knowledge can be build upon.)

This was added later. When talking purely about scientific knowledge, risk isn't a factor of course.

But we have, at times, behaved as if we had no idea if Covid would behave like literally any other coronavirus in existence. Even if we didn't strictly know that Covid had not mutated into something like HIV, it was irrational not to assume it.

Leaving aside that I don't know who is "we" and how "we have acted": A theme of the current pandemic has been that the societies/governments that had faced a coronavirus outbreak in the past, e.g. SARS in Taiwan, South Korea, China, Singapore, Hong Kong, have acted a lot more swiftly and decisively relative to most Western nations. It is hard to ignore that this approach has been more successful in terms of fatalities and economic costs (ignoring personal rights and freedoms).

Can we please not ignore personal rights and freedoms though?

Also the number of reinfections was tiny. We have known for 8 months already that it provided lasting protection, nevermind the fear mongering.

No, "we" haven't "known", and I'm not sure oversimplification is a good answer to fear mongering.

Yes, expert consensus has been positive from almost day one, based on SARS-Cov-1 and other coronaviruses. Still, what we didn't know (and in some cases still don't):

* Is there anti-body dependent enhancement?

* Effects on/from variants?

* Effects from other coronaviruses?

* Role of severity of infection on protection?

* Clinical relevance of protection

* Epidemiological relevance of protection

* Mechanism of protection

* Duration of protection

etc.

BTW in most of Europe, recovered persons are on equal footing with the tested and vaccinated.

In COVID-19's case, there's a reasonable chance that it's a synthetic product of gain of function research.

Is there any primary source evidence of this or is this reporters reporting things reported by other reporters? The former would be incredibly compelling, the latter would lead me to question the reporter’s motives.

The US National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology gain of function research on coronaviruses.

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...

There's evidence that it's synthetic

https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throug...

https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html

Most of the researchers who are strongly denying the possibility of COVID-19 being synthesized in a lab have conflicting interests. Namely, they are associated with organizations that have directly collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of virology.

You really think people would do that? Just go on TV and exaggerate and lie like that?!

Are you telling us that ALL pandemic viruses are the same and there would be no differences between them? What do you mean by “people/media simply ignoring the past”?

Assuming the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 behaves like SARS-CoV-1 might be a sensible working hypothesis?

How many pandemics originated from a virus potentially created in a lab?

This virus has in all cases defied a lot of previous assumptions and humbled many healthcare professionals.

Population density and mobility has never been this high.

Living space for species carrying diseases has never been this constricted.

The plague was a very severe pandemic, but it was never global at one single point in time in the way COVID was in 2020; it slowly burned itself along the silk road.

This is a very fair point. But don't you think that this is affecting speed of transmission but not the fundamentals of the disease?

More transmissions mean more chances at mutations. This isn't just true for humans, but also the animal carriers of pathogens who now live closer together.

Mobility is also a factor in transmission. MERS was fatal enough to burn itself out, but in a less mobile world it would've burned out even faster.

A Dutch newspaper keeps an updated list of reinfections worldwide. Interestingly, there has only been 82 cases and 3 death, which is a tiny amount.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t...

Hmm. I'm somewhat doubtful of those numbers as I personally know someone who has been reinfected and isn't in that table. Not sure if this sort of data is being collected and rigorously reported on all levels.

No, the point is, you probably don’t. Most anecdotal “reinfections” are from people who think they were infected, but never had it confirmed.

These stories are also typically second- or third-hand, and resemble whatever story was most recently in the news: “my ‘friend’ had a bad cold in March 2020, then got tested in July and had Covid. He was reinfected!” Stories that are heavy on hearsay, but light on details.

When we actually go and look for reinfections using rigorous standards, we find that they’re incredibly rare. It’s highly unlikely that there’s a huge wave of reinfections that we’re simply not seeing after hundreds of millions of infections and months of effort to find them.

> No, the point is, you probably don’t. Most anecdotal “reinfections” are from people who think they were infected, but never had it confirmed.

Not sure what you mean by "confirmed", but this particular case had positive PCR results for both the first infection and the subsequent re-infection after 4 months.

Encouraging, maybe it will be accepted by the slowpokes in governments I won't name. Even with a recent positive antibodies test I still had to get negative CV tests.

With all the fuck ups the German government had regarding Covid, at least we have one free PCR test and two anti-gen tests per week. With those, life is, besides shopping and culture, almost normal. Assuming you test negative. If getting the test is all it takes, we really don't have much to complain about. Unless of course the PCR test costs you 100+ Euros, then it is different.

How does it compare to a vaccine ?

Anecdata: I had a very mild case at the end of last October. Three weeks ago I got my first jab of BioNTech/Pfizer. Ten days after that I did antibodies test. The amount was 750 times of that required to be seropositive. Much as I expected. Just got my second jab, but won't be doing antibodies test anymore.

Indeed, in France, if you had COVID within a certain time period, one jab counts as fully vaccinated.

Who knows what, if any, differences there are in long-term immunity, but so far, infection + 1 vaccine is looking like it produces very good immunity, even against known variants and even against the original SARS. In a petri dish anyway.

Out of curiosity, what was the number (and unit) you got, and which antibodies were tested?

I still had antibodies in March, 1 year after having Covid, but the doctors didn’t want to say if the level was indicative of immunity or not...

Probably depends how many boosters you get, and the vaccine type. All the vaccines in widespread US use don't contain the whole virus, so it could have a reduction in T-cell protection, but that's not what's being talked about. It's quite possible the antibody levels in blood after five years would no longer be neutralizing after five years, looking at other subunit-ish vaccines.

Yes, the vaccine type is very important. Currently, of the Seychelles, Israel, the UAE, Chile and Bahrain—respectively the world’s five most vaccinated countries—only Israel is not fighting to contain a dangerous surge in Covid-19 infections.

source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/05/11/covid-sur...

What those four countries have in common is their use of Sinopharm. It seems safe to assume that the efficacy of Sinopharm has been significantly exaggerated.

It is unfortunate that it has been elevated to the same level as vaccines that have been rigorously tested and validated.

For countries using US/EU-approved vaccines —- Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and Astra Zeneca —- increasing vaccination rates are clearly showing a “decoupling” of cases and hospitalisations. That prevention of severe disease is their stated objective, that’s all we need to end the pandemic, and they are clearly a huge success story.

> It seems safe to assume that the efficacy of Sinopharm has been significantly exaggerated.

Didn't the CCP even admit its lack of efficacy?

Personal anecdote: My wife and I got COVID very early in 2020 (she’s a health care worker and picked it up at work) and we both had a very mild illness, only one week of flu symptoms then back to normal ourselves. 11 months later a family member got ill and we both were in close contact for hours with that person as we admitted them to hospital for a check up and were in a tiny unventilated room for hours. That person had high fever and a coughed the entire time and we were up in their face because that person needs care with drinking and so on. Long story short, we both expected to get ill again but it didn’t happen. Not a tiny bit. Clearly we had an amazingly strong immune response to the virus still almost an entire year later, contradictory to what most news outlets tried to make us believe.

EDIT:

People who downvote my real life experience are literally just poor tiny internet trolls who feel offended by other people’s positive experiences. I haven’t said anything which isn’t mentioned in the article itself, just confirmed that my personal experience makes me believe that it’s quite plausible. Clearly some people feel offended by just life itself. LOL to those losers.

It's a good anecdote, but we have some data on this now, and from a neutralization standpoint, a prior infection is about 75-80% protective against reinfection. Very good, but not quite as good as the mRNA vaccines.

As for spending time in a room with the person with the high fever and coughing, it sounds like they were probably past their peak viral shedding. This usually happens the day before symptom onset or the very first day of any COVID symptoms.

This is why COVID has been so difficult to contain, because by the time someone has had enough time to even notice symptoms and then go get tested, they've already shed most of the virus particles that they're going to. If they then have to wait a couple of days for a test result and don't isolate in the meantime, a positive test that late only makes a marginal difference in reducing transmission.

Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... (Pfizer vaccine)

SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

Be careful with your second study, because they looked at those that developed/still had antibodies post-infection. Kinda like saying those that developed a good immune response developed a good immune response.

But not everyone develops long-lasting antibodies and not everyone keeps those levels high.

In this study, 8-30% didn't develop/lost antibody positivity (depending on which test method used): https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

In this study, 28% of those with documented infection had their antibodies go below the level of positivity over time: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm

> Be careful with your second study, because they looked at those that developed/still had antibodies post-infection. Kinda like saying those that developed a good immune response developed a good immune response.

True. It depends on which specific antibody you look for, and how.

Here's a recent cohort study:

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Persist for up to 13 Months and Reduce Risk of Reinfection https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.07.21256823v...

"Here, we longitudinally measured Spike (S) and Nucleocapsid (N)-specific antibodies in 1,309 healthcare workers (HCWs), including 916 COVID-19 negative HCWs and 393 convalescent COVID-19 for up to 422 days post-symptom. ... Overall, 69 SARS-CoV-2 infections developed in the COVID-19 negative group (incidence of 12.22 per 100 person-years) versus one in the COVID-19 positive group (incidence of 0.40 per 100 person-years), indicating a relative reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of 96.7% (p<0.0001)."

Of course, these antibodies <--> protection studies are a bit of streetlamp effect phenomenon. Antibodies are relatively easy to measure so that's what immune endurance studies tend to check for. The relative risk of reinfection in real-world settings is the more robust measure.

news outlets until very recently were selectively quoting worst case scenarios very consistently. it made many members of my family anxious and some friends thought it would never end.

dozens of times i would repeat that most likely the immunity would be lasting and would protect against variants but i think the whole time they thought i was an idiot to be contradicting actual experts. but i wasn’t, these were the worst case scenarios that could be found among experts. not likely scenarios.

People have been so scared by the news, they are still wearing masks outside (where it doesn't spread) and even when vaccinated!

I wear masks outside, because sometimes I encounter a bus stop where the entire volume of the bus exits exactly where and when I happen to be walking.

Also, a mask, like wearing trousers, is a trivial cost.

I still will wear one after being vaccinated, because I expect the effects to be multipliers: 80% protection from a vaccine and 90% from a mask is 1-(1-0.8)(1-0.9) = 98% protection.

Eh, I'll be doing that. They're useful for more than Covid. I hate getting a cold or the flu (especially in a workplace where people are forced to come in, even sick), but a mask somehow makes you look insane/paranoid or sick yourself. I hope they'll become more acceptable.

There's nothing magic about the outside that prevents COVID from spreading. If someone with COVID happens to cough in your face while you walk past them on the sidewalk, you have a good chance of getting it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/please-go-ou...

>The chance of catching COVID-19 from someone coughing as they walk past you in a park is "infinitesimally small," B.C.'s provincial health officer said Wednesday.

Do you wear a helmet outside? There's nothing that prevents a brick from falling on your head while walking past buildings. You have a good chance of dying. Better to be safe than sorry.

Where do you live that people cough in your face?

Not only news outlets. Anywhere you'd see some positive news there would inevitably be comments about long covid and what not.

Without any evidence matching their claims, of course.

>quoting worst case scenarios

Why is this treated like a conspiracy and not simply the obvious thing to do? The only thing that can be reported _with certainty_ is the worst case scenario so obviously the media is going to use cover-my-ass style wording.

It doesn't really take a genius to realize the media is aiming for the least wrong, not the most right.

Our jurisdiction had a 'science table' that would publish optimistic and worst-case modelling. The media ignored the former. Omitting less scary news doesn't improve correctness.

>It doesn't really take a genius to realize the media is aiming for the least wrong, not the most right.

Is that really what you think they're aiming for?

The media is aiming for the most clicks.

The negative reaction is unlikely to be to your personal anecdote, but to the "contradictory to what most news outlets tried to make us believe" dig.

This is not surprising.

We have a huge amount of data that the reinfection rate is very low (1 in 1,000):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v...

It is worse than that. Your story is not statically relevant, but it is in line with the OP so it is relevant and interesting. However they cannot stomach anything that contradicts their new religion. I like you LOL attitude towards those losers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com