- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Never ever forget about what they did to our country
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:16 pm to TigerDoc
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:16 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
As I understand it, he outbreak comms strategy for a novel disease should typically be to message something like "we don't know yet" and "don't assume you're immune because you had it before" (because different infections yield different durations and degrees of immunity).
What viruses do not impart natural immunity to the person that has had it?
1
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:39 pm to David_DJS
It's understandable to wonder if there any good reason, beyond politics or pharma influence, for health authorities not to assume that COVID infection would give permanent, sterilizing immunity. Plenty of viruses don’t give lasting immunity. Common cold coronaviruses (same virus family) can reinfect you in less than a year. RSV can hit people multiple times in one season. Dengue can reinfect you with a different strain and make you sicker. Even flu immunity fades and shifts every year (hence yearly vaccine).
So with a brand-new coronavirus, the safest early assumption wasn’t “one and done,” but “don’t bank on it until we know for sure”. That’s not pharma hype. It’s just how outbreak medicine works when you’re starting with a blank slate.
So with a brand-new coronavirus, the safest early assumption wasn’t “one and done,” but “don’t bank on it until we know for sure”. That’s not pharma hype. It’s just how outbreak medicine works when you’re starting with a blank slate.
This post was edited on 8/13/25 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:52 pm to PorkSammich
quote:
quote:
What exactly did Trump do?
Shut the country down and pushed a dangerous, experimental vaccine.
You are confusing Trump with a pack of dem governors who put covid patients in nursing homes while crippling their own economy with lock-downs.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 1:58 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
It's understandable to wonder if there any good reason, beyond politics or pharma influence, for health authorities not to assume that COVID infection would give permanent, sterilizing immunity. Plenty of viruses don’t give lasting immunity. Common cold coronaviruses (same virus family) can reinfect you in less than a year. RSV can hit people multiple times in one season. Dengue can reinfect you with a different strain and make you sicker. Even flu immunity fades and shifts every year (hence yearly vaccine).
So with a brand-new coronavirus, the safest early assumption wasn’t “one and done,” but “don’t bank on it until we know for sure”. That’s not pharma hype. It’s just how outbreak medicine works when you’re starting with a blank slate.
I don't think anyone banks on permanent/sterilizing immunity with any of the common viruses.
Another question - for those reinfected by C19, did they typically suffer symptoms to a lesser degree than the first time through?
Posted on 8/13/25 at 2:11 pm to David_DJS
Definitely. On average, COVID symptoms are milder the second time because immune "memory" yields a faster response (similar for most infections, though not all). What the right a priori expectation should have been for COVID in early 2020 is tricky. It wasn’t identical to flu or to the other coronaviruses, so no one knew how much protection a first infection would give, or for how long. I’m comfortable admitting my lane: I’m not an ID doc or virologist, so I lean on the people who are, and who work in communities where findings get cross-checked and challenged.
The uncertainty was tough. Even with more background knowledge than most, I didn’t know how long immunity might last, and neither did the experts. In hindsight, some calls were right, some weren’t, but in real time, trusting the best-functioning expert networks we had was the least-bad option.
The uncertainty was tough. Even with more background knowledge than most, I didn’t know how long immunity might last, and neither did the experts. In hindsight, some calls were right, some weren’t, but in real time, trusting the best-functioning expert networks we had was the least-bad option.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 2:25 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
The uncertainty was tough. Even with more background knowledge than most, I didn’t know how long immunity might last, and neither did the experts. In hindsight, some calls were right, some weren’t, but in real time, trusting the best-functioning expert networks we had was the least-bad option.
I appreciate your responding to my questions. You and I have covered some ground in the past, too.
The weightiest criticism of Covid response I have is we knew too much (even) early on for the fallback position to be, "shut it all down or we're all going to die" - starting with the Diamond Princess, there were definite early crumbs that told us who was truly at risk, and more importantly - who really wasn't.
In your industry, is it accepted that for any sort of medical "emergency" with a wide reach the approach needs to be to scare the holy shite out of the unaware/unsuspecting for maximum compliance on public health measures?
Posted on 8/13/25 at 2:28 pm to wallowinit
quote:
I think we’re gonna find out the limit to that pardon
Hope so, but I doubt it
Posted on 8/13/25 at 2:35 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
You are confusing Trump with a pack of dem governors who put covid patients in nursing homes while crippling their own economy with lock-downs.
I’m not, they were given the ability for lockdowns when Trump implemented 15 days to slow the spread.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 2:42 pm to David_DJS
I appreciate being able to have this kind of good-faith back-and-forth. I don’t think “scare people” should be the go-to in public health. It can grab attention (and of course the media wants to grab attention and it's called "media" because it's the "between" all of us and the experts), but the "scare them" approach obviously costs trust even if it guards against complacency. Early data like the Diamond Princess gave some info about risk, but the full picture wasn’t clear (like the aerosol vector which didn't come out until much later), and officials were staring at an unknown with an exponential growth curve. I’d rather see straight talk about what’s known, what isn’t, and why measures are recommended. That definitely builds more trust in the long run.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 2:52 pm to PorkSammich
quote:
I’m not, they were given the ability for lockdowns when Trump implemented 15 days to slow the spread.
And he led fedgov in funding it all. Lockdowns would have lasted about 48 hours if fedgov didn't flood the country with cash.
Posted on 8/13/25 at 3:00 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Early data like the Diamond Princess gave some info about risk, but the full picture wasn’t clear (like the aerosol vector which didn't come out until much later), and officials were staring at an unknown with an exponential growth curve.
First, I go back to the fallback narrative being doom and gloom justifying draconian response measures - doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Moreover, let's say the virus came even worse than advertised. It was transmittable AF, required hospitalization for 40% of those that got it - not much difference where an age profile is concerned, and it was fatal 5% of the time.
Outside of the initial 2-weeks to slow the spread to prepare as much as possible, there really wasn't much we could have done to keep the virus in check/minimize its outcomes - right? At that point, all the death/destruction was baked in so all the sheltering, masks and distancing would have been for show.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News