... it is not proven that having had Covid, you can't be reinfected.
of course you can be reinfected; the question is whether your immune system will be able to fight off the infection. The evidence we have so far is that for most people there is long lasting T-cell immunity.
Even people who had other coronaviruses, including the original Sars-Cov virus, have T-cells that can recognise and destroy the Sars-Cov-2 virus.
Most vaccine developers are aiming for a robust antibody response against the coronavirus, but a long-lasting T-cell response is the hallmark of a really good vaccine
news.berkeley.edu
.... important new studies have shown that natural infection by SARS-CoV-2 stimulates a broad T-cell response against several viral proteins, not just against the spike protein. T-cells produced after natural infection in SARS patients are also very long-lived, he said. A recent study showed that patients who recovered from SARS-CoV-1 infection in 2003 produced CD4 and CD8 T-cells that are still present 17 years later. These T-cells also react to proteins in today’s SARS-CoV-2, which the patients were never exposed to, indicating that T-cells are cross-reactive against different coronaviruses — including coronaviruses that cause common colds.,,,
Yes, I don't have a reference but there was one case I read about where the reinfection was serious enough to require hospital treatment but the first infection wasn't.
Source please?
Even if you have a source, an isolated case won't change the overriding principles regarding how immunity works.
....Everyone here showing off about how they aren't sticking to the rules only results in the rules lasting longer....
This makes no sense and suggests you misunderstand the principles.
The rules are
deliberately designed to
prolong the outbreak over a longer period of time; the aim is to avoid getting too many cases at once.
If you are suggesting the aim is to eliminate the virus, you are very much mistaken, and I would question how you think this can be achieved?
What measures would you all put in place to try and put an end to all this, and at the same time be acceptable to the wider public, the opposition, and the general media?
No restrictions, allow the cases to rise and some people to die, is therefore not a valid answer as that would not receive public support outside of this forum.
We have to learn to live with the virus - fact
The virus is not going to go away - fact
We cannot eliminate the virus - fact
I do not believe there is a set of measures that will be acceptable to everyone. If 'flu was a new virus, many people would be stating we should be trying to eliminate it and would state the annual death toll from 'flu (which can be 50k+ in a bad 'flu year, though I suspect the numbers would be even greater if the same measure was used as for Covid19) was unacceptable.
The majority of the public now understand that the average age of a Covid19 death is around 83 and that the majority of people infected with Sars-Cov-2 do not develop Covid19 symptoms and that the damage to mental health, fitness, livelihoods, and much more is far outweighing the risks posted by the virus itself.
What exactly do
you propose as an acceptable solution?
....So, wouldn't it be smarter to prevent, rather than complain when a catastrophe hits?
I do not see how you can "prevent" new viruses appearing.
.... maybe we're just a dumb species hellbent on our own destruction IMHO.
Most people know that a second lockdown would be destructive and do not advocate this. It's only a small minority who want to bring about destruction with more lockdowns; the problem is that minority are very vocal and have very persuasive arguments based on a need to be so-called "safe". It's a fallacy.
Absolutely not. The first one was to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. If they haven't got capacity for everything ramped up in the 6 months they've had since March....
To any 'pro-lockdown' people. Get the head out your backsides and see
a) many people have lost their jobs
b) many more probably will with another lockdown
c) guess what, you probably will too.
Let's do a Sweden. Keep everything open, but with restrictions.
Pro-lockdown people do
not listen to reason; they do not care if people lose jobs as they tend to either be retired or do work from home jobs from reasonably well proportioned homes.
They tend to refuse to accept that T-cells are the body's best defence against the virus (they like to focus entirely on antibodies as they are able to misrepresent the results of antibody tests to promote their extremist views); they refuse to accept the average age of a Covid19 death is 83; they refuse to accept most people are asymptomatic; they put the needs of young people, poorer people lower on their agenda and they do not recognise the key role of good mental health.
You cannot reason with them; they are in a small minority but they are very vocal, thus giving the illusion that they are more numerous than they actually are!
Are you for real? This virus isn't anything that's going to wipe out our species. Our reaction to it is more serious than the threat it poses to almost all the population.
The virus itself poses absolutely zero threat to the human race; the measures used to combat the virus that have been imposed to pander to the hysterical pro-lockdown brigade,
do pose a big danger, however.
I think whatever decisions are made, there needs to be clearer instructions to people. The regional lockdown type activities are just confusing everyone.
Very true; it's disappointing we did not adopt a more sensible and stable approach.
This interview makes a good point around the 13min 15 second mark:
...Having the same measures in place all the time gives more stability...
Instead the UK is pandering to the hysterical brigade.
