[wh1t3n01s3]

I don’t buy it. The comparison should be done between other similar aerial coronaviruses, like the 1919 pandemic flu one. The fact that in that case it vanished by itself it’s a big tell about our herd and personal immunities. Since this kind of distracting articles is very common, I wonder if there is behind those a willingness to scare people... Personal opinions

[pbhjpbhj]

Just FYI Influenza is not a coronavirus. They can both be grouped (along with many other diseases) under the term ARI (Airborne Respitory Infection).

It's so important to be precise and specific when taking about Covid19; it's not flu.

The 1919 pandemic didn't just "disappear" it killed many of its hosts, and people used social distancing, additional hygiene measures, and mask wearing to help reduce the infection rates. AIUI it was more rapid in producing symptoms and more deadly - leading to less infections and perhaps less deaths than a Covid19-like virus might (at that point in history).

[tzs]

Also travel outside your town (or even your part of town) was a lot less frequent then. People lived a lot closer to where they worked and shopped and socialized.

Cars were around, but nearly as common as they are now. In 1919 there were 72.5 cars per 1000 people in the US. It was 838 in 2018.

[donor20]

We keep on hearing that having the antibodies = no resistance to subsequent infection and then articles like this. I also don't buy it fully.

Antibodies are tied into what helped you get over your initial infection, if they don't do anything how did you clear initial infection? Sure - we don't have the studies yet - but this claim that there is no immunity is totally bogus - the reality - we don't yet have a study for THIS virus to show the full cycle of immunity - that doesn't mean Covid is a magic virus.

Secondly, this title "short lived immunity" is ridiculous. The issue is immune response, ie, when re-infected can your body clear disease efficiently. Isn't that how most immune responses work, you don't even really trigger them pre-infection. But then you get an exposure, body response kicks in (often better on repeat) etc.

I'm tired of these "masks don't help", "antibodies mean nothing", "reinfections are common" type articles.

[Izkata]

> We keep on hearing that having the antibodies = no resistance to subsequent infection and then articles like this. I also don't buy it fully.

> Antibodies are tied into what helped you get over your initial infection, if they don't do anything how did you clear initial infection?

It's not magic, it really is a thing with mutations in a handful of other viruses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhanceme...

It was an early fear that I think we're past by now.

[collyw]

It would be better if the just admitted they don't have a clue, and masks look like they make sense. Lockdowns seemed to make sense, until Sweden showed that they probably were not necessary. I would respect them more for that.

[KerryJones]

It's important to look at Sweden's culture and what they did do. They gave recommendations and did do a partial shutdown, and much of their populace actually listen to the government recommendations, unlike the American populace.

It's also important to compare cities and countries of comparable magnitude, size can make a big difference.

[djsumdog]

> much of their populace actually listen to the government recommendations, unlike the American populace

Americas have followed the rules, in almost all regions. People all over the US stopped being social days or weeks before the lockdowns even started.

What are you basing this on?

[KerryJones]

Not in major areas such as Los Angeles, San Diego and other hot spots. Both from friends I've talked to in the area, to video footage, to instagrams to media. This is also true of many republican cities and states through Texas, Florida and the South.

Many stopped immediately, but many have no stopped. There are even COVID parties, and open rallies with 500,000 attendies: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/08/sturgis-mo...

[collyw]

A flu pandmenic was probably cause by an influenza virus, hence the name.

[mumblemumble]

The 1919 flu pandemic was caused by an influenza virus, not a coronavirus. They're not all that similar. In the Linnaean classification, they don't even belong to the same phylum.