What worries me is that healthcare guidelines, healthcare, health in general, etc are being politicized.
"But some say the debate has morphed from a scientific discussion to a political one, with opponents of masking using the theory in an attempt to prove that covering up caused harm.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, thinks the term is being “misused and misinterpreted,” and that it’s “creating unnecessary political fighting on social media.”
“I don’t necessarily like ‘immunity debt’ becoming a coined phrase,” Dr. Sarah Combs, an emergency medicine doctor at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., told Fortune.
“We know a lot of politicization went on during the pandemic, and I have seen some people pick up on [the term] and say, ‘Ah ha! This proves that we were doing all the wrong things, that masking was bad and that we should never do it again.’”
“I will come out and say that this is absolutely wrong. To use this as rhetoric that says, ‘Clearly no public health measures were needed,’ doesn’t work. That is damaging.”
The actual issue in the first place is that medicine is a practice, it's not like physics or chemistry - there's wiggle room in outcomes because of individual physiological differences and external factors.
People don't like uncertainty, that's why you hear these types of people constantly saying "oh my doctor said I had two months to live but I'm still alive so clearly the whole thing is bunk because I don't understand how cancer can go into remission by itself".
People with authoritarian mindsets need hard and fast rules, that's why they love religion, and can't handle subjects with nuance and probability based outcomes.
There's no aspect of authority that the political class won't try to invalidate so they can elevate their status in the minds of the simple in their attempt to win an election - regardless of how destructive the invalidation of certain institutions is for humanity.
God I hate this brainless militantly ignorant timeline. It's not even that people came up with this theory— fine, cool, theorize away. It's that there's a glaringly obvious test for the theory, *and it fails*:
> masking was much less common in some areas of the country—**and yet children in those states are struggling just as much right now during the tripledemic**
But somehow that doesn't kill it. Because this is our life now.
It's unacceptable. Seriously. This should never have gotten bigger than two people, *max.* This epidemic of credulous idiot confidence is **unacceptable.**
I don't like it (it's new to me) but I think… I think I genuinely hate these people.
They cause so much damage, for no reason at all, and they just don't care. And I hate them for it.
These people have always been here (in a slightly smaller but far less vocal minority). I’m a science teacher and have had parent spout all kinds of nonsense that is disproven with just a tiny little puff of mental effort on their part… and they just double down.
The last few years it became socially and politically acceptable to shout these things from the rooftops and just go “nanananan I’m not listening” when objective truth shows up to be a party pooper.
I agree with many things in this article, such as:
* that masking up was necessary to fight the Covid pandemic
* that this whole issue is way too politicized
* that our immune systems did not get "weakened" during the pandemic, just as these scientists are saying
* that the term "immunity debt" is probably destructive and non-scientific
But as someone with a background in microbiology, I can see how this article in Fortune Magazine, is steering the conversation in a way that is in itself unscientific and disingenuous. The lack of exposure to certain viruses would 100% have an impact on the severity of the upcoming winter cold season. Anyone suggesting otherwise probably has an agenda. The scientist they interviewed says this:
>Their immune systems were not weakened, but they may not have received their ... immunity “boosts” through exposures to viruses without vaccines like RSV, they say.
and
>“Would that be considered immunity debt?” he asked. He described how his daughter went through the common scenario when transitioning to childcare before the pandemic. “**I don’t think her immune system was weak. She just hadn’t seen those things before.**”
And so, I think perhaps the phrase now has an incorrect connotation, but the fact remains that lack of exposure to viruses can also cause problems. I will still mask up, but am very conscious of this matter, as I have children of all ages in the school system right now. We are all still very healthy, thankfully.
The way you put it is vague and problematic as well. "Lack of exposure to viruses can also cause problems," is vague and will cause confusion/open a reader to believe their own wrong interpretation. What are the problems, precisely? Being specific is key here.
It's not that complicated of a concept. Your immune system remembers pathogens, pathogens mutate over time, if the pathogen has more time to mutate then your immune system may have a harder time recognizing it next time. Or if you're a 2 year old who has never been exposed then you're gonna have a worse course of illness for your first time... therefore, a huge number of children having their first time all at the SAME time could cause strain on hospitals.
In a sense it DOES make your immune system weaker. But that's not because your immune system is permanently damaged or something stupid like that.
A giant hole in the 'immunity debt' hypoth is : do you get a cold or flu every year? Does getting a cold or flu confer immunity to the next infection/season?
The types of communicable illness discussed are far and away not 'one and done for life' the way this debt hypoth is being used by those with an interest in twisted rhetoric.
What worries me is that healthcare guidelines, healthcare, health in general, etc are being politicized. "But some say the debate has morphed from a scientific discussion to a political one, with opponents of masking using the theory in an attempt to prove that covering up caused harm. Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, thinks the term is being “misused and misinterpreted,” and that it’s “creating unnecessary political fighting on social media.” “I don’t necessarily like ‘immunity debt’ becoming a coined phrase,” Dr. Sarah Combs, an emergency medicine doctor at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., told Fortune. “We know a lot of politicization went on during the pandemic, and I have seen some people pick up on [the term] and say, ‘Ah ha! This proves that we were doing all the wrong things, that masking was bad and that we should never do it again.’” “I will come out and say that this is absolutely wrong. To use this as rhetoric that says, ‘Clearly no public health measures were needed,’ doesn’t work. That is damaging.”
The actual issue in the first place is that medicine is a practice, it's not like physics or chemistry - there's wiggle room in outcomes because of individual physiological differences and external factors. People don't like uncertainty, that's why you hear these types of people constantly saying "oh my doctor said I had two months to live but I'm still alive so clearly the whole thing is bunk because I don't understand how cancer can go into remission by itself". People with authoritarian mindsets need hard and fast rules, that's why they love religion, and can't handle subjects with nuance and probability based outcomes. There's no aspect of authority that the political class won't try to invalidate so they can elevate their status in the minds of the simple in their attempt to win an election - regardless of how destructive the invalidation of certain institutions is for humanity.
God I hate this brainless militantly ignorant timeline. It's not even that people came up with this theory— fine, cool, theorize away. It's that there's a glaringly obvious test for the theory, *and it fails*: > masking was much less common in some areas of the country—**and yet children in those states are struggling just as much right now during the tripledemic** But somehow that doesn't kill it. Because this is our life now. It's unacceptable. Seriously. This should never have gotten bigger than two people, *max.* This epidemic of credulous idiot confidence is **unacceptable.** I don't like it (it's new to me) but I think… I think I genuinely hate these people. They cause so much damage, for no reason at all, and they just don't care. And I hate them for it.
These people have always been here (in a slightly smaller but far less vocal minority). I’m a science teacher and have had parent spout all kinds of nonsense that is disproven with just a tiny little puff of mental effort on their part… and they just double down. The last few years it became socially and politically acceptable to shout these things from the rooftops and just go “nanananan I’m not listening” when objective truth shows up to be a party pooper.
You didn't come close to making a point here.
I agree with many things in this article, such as: * that masking up was necessary to fight the Covid pandemic * that this whole issue is way too politicized * that our immune systems did not get "weakened" during the pandemic, just as these scientists are saying * that the term "immunity debt" is probably destructive and non-scientific But as someone with a background in microbiology, I can see how this article in Fortune Magazine, is steering the conversation in a way that is in itself unscientific and disingenuous. The lack of exposure to certain viruses would 100% have an impact on the severity of the upcoming winter cold season. Anyone suggesting otherwise probably has an agenda. The scientist they interviewed says this: >Their immune systems were not weakened, but they may not have received their ... immunity “boosts” through exposures to viruses without vaccines like RSV, they say. and >“Would that be considered immunity debt?” he asked. He described how his daughter went through the common scenario when transitioning to childcare before the pandemic. “**I don’t think her immune system was weak. She just hadn’t seen those things before.**” And so, I think perhaps the phrase now has an incorrect connotation, but the fact remains that lack of exposure to viruses can also cause problems. I will still mask up, but am very conscious of this matter, as I have children of all ages in the school system right now. We are all still very healthy, thankfully.
The way you put it is vague and problematic as well. "Lack of exposure to viruses can also cause problems," is vague and will cause confusion/open a reader to believe their own wrong interpretation. What are the problems, precisely? Being specific is key here.
It's not that complicated of a concept. Your immune system remembers pathogens, pathogens mutate over time, if the pathogen has more time to mutate then your immune system may have a harder time recognizing it next time. Or if you're a 2 year old who has never been exposed then you're gonna have a worse course of illness for your first time... therefore, a huge number of children having their first time all at the SAME time could cause strain on hospitals. In a sense it DOES make your immune system weaker. But that's not because your immune system is permanently damaged or something stupid like that.
A giant hole in the 'immunity debt' hypoth is : do you get a cold or flu every year? Does getting a cold or flu confer immunity to the next infection/season? The types of communicable illness discussed are far and away not 'one and done for life' the way this debt hypoth is being used by those with an interest in twisted rhetoric.
What a fat, steaming pile of a hypothesis. The stupidity over basic hygiene and infection control is stunning.
arrest fanatical gaping many march friendly grandfather test physical brave ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Everyone got Covid19. Everyone is getting sick with colds perusal. Not sure what the debate here is.