Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

I said nothing about reinfection, but you're right: you're going to get it multiple times in your life, just like any other circulating coronavirus, the risk of which you've completely neglected in every prior year you have been alive.

You can't do anything about it. You have a choice: you can lock yourself indoors, keep your face hidden, and live in perpetual anxiety -- in a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable -- based on questionable research. Alternatively, you can accept that life comes with some level of risk.

What you can't do, no matter how much you hide and curse at others, is avoid a respiratory virus.

View on HN

The fact that you are going to get reinfected has a significant bearing on your ridiculous implicit claim made here:

> You can get it when you're younger and healthier, or you can get it when you're older and sicker.

that you are better off getting infected sooner rather than later and that there is only negative value to be had in postponing infection.

>What you can't do, no matter how much you hide and curse at others, is avoid a respiratory virus.

You may want to keep that sentiment for when a 30+% IFR respiratory virus like MERS causes a pandemic which, given the law of large numbers, will absolutely happen. Then, the attitude "you can do nothing" leads to only one thing - total civilizational collapse. (BTW, measles and rubella are both respiratory viruses that I have avoided and will continue to avoid but thanks for again proving the point that you have no idea what you are talking about.)

But looking at your submission history, I don't intend to lose any more time with the definition of covidiotism.

Most of us are able to avoid measles and rubella because the vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection and transmission. By contrast, the COVID-19 vaccines are pretty good at preventing severe symptoms but do little to prevent infection and transmission. Attempting to avoid SARS-CoV-2 is utterly pointless; unless you live like a hermit, you're going to be occasionally exposed no matter what.

>attempting to avoid SARS-CoV-2 is utterly pointless

Maybe you should start by learning about cumulative probability and hence why n/2 infections carry less risk than n infections.

Biology can seldom be reduced to such simplistic calculations. Do you have any actual evidence for that claim? Please provide a quantitative estimate of the relative risk reduction for a serious adverse cardiac event under your proposed course of action, and show your work.

It is axiomatically true that a repeated event that carries non-zero probability for an adverse effect increases the cumulative probability of said adverse effect when it recurs.

I don't need to show any work since covid infection AND reinfection has already been proven beyond any doubt to have non-zero risk of adverse effects on those that don't die from the infection. So either provide proof that covid reinfection carries 0 risk of permanent sequelae or stop wasting my time with the ridiculous claim that reducing the number of times someone is getting reinfected has no health benefit.

trention,

you need to provide some evidence instead of endlessly misusing some heuristic, or principle like Occam's Razor.

There is no such axiomatic truth. You are making things up and posting medical misinformation. Please provide peer reviewed citations for your claims.

This:

>a repeated event that carries non-zero probability for an adverse effect increases the cumulative probability of said adverse effect when it recurs.

is true by logical necessity. It doesn't need peer-review citation because is it's a synthetic apriori proposition (and also straight out of Probability 101, which unsurprisingly you haven't attended/understood), it's not an empirical claim depending on data.

I would say "learn to read with comprehension" but I fear it's not possible.

>posting medical misinformation

Very rich coming from a person literally reposting conspiracy talking points off from antivax twitter.

Stop lying. I haven't posted anything from "antivax twitter".

You are making things up without scientific basis.

trention has no evidence.

He also misapplies principles like Occam's Razor, in Latin ""Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate" (Multiples should not be posited without necessity) and cumulative probabilities, despite not knowing the science on infection seropositivity, and having a situation that literally demands multiples.

In a complex situation where there are multiple causes, and multiple effects simultaneously due to multiple agents taking action, he refuses to provide evidence and then blames it all on covid deaths, even when the deaths are happening among working age individuals which by their very nature, are less likely to have multiple comorbidities or the advanced age which are more likely to be associated with Covid fatalities.

He does not accept that the governors that sequestered covid patients in nursing homes with highly vulnerable residents have any culpability for the wildfire infections that killed many of our most vulnerable. Nope, he brushes all that away too.

i’ve noticed the same about their comments. and i didn’t even have to look at their history, because their batshit opinions, downplaying covid and long covid, have been obvious in every thread about covid i’ve seen on this site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com