The Elephant in the room

[jamesbrown]

Thirdly, quoting the New Scientist is fairly disingenuous, they are proven not to be totally reliable and often full of "twaddle", as you elequently put it, over a number of subjects.

The New Scientist is public understanding of science and futuristic pseudo-science speculation, not actual science. The articles are mostly written by journalists with an undergraduate degree. It's the Tomorrow's World of journals.

[MrMarkyMark]

The New Scientist is public understanding of science and futuristic pseudo-science speculation, not actual science. The articles are mostly written by journalists with an undergraduate degree. It's the Tomorrow's World of journals.

I know

Oh dear, so basically as worthless and unproven as my original post then

[NotAllThere]

Patronising much

Yes.

In addition, why would it cause you any harm if you were aware it could possibly true and follow it?

Fake news causes unnecessary fear and distress to the gullible and hard of thinking - fake news such as saying "if you and your family are all infected, you must stay away from each other"

It seems you are almost accusing me of telling people to gargle Vinegar for a cure

Yes, Well done.

I posted the New Scientist link precisely because it does popularise science so non-scientists can understand it. But if you don't like it, try this one
expert reaction to questions about COVID-19 and viral load | Science Media Centre

“But there is no evidence for any suggestion that if everyone in a family is already sick they can they reinfect each other with more and more virus. In fact for other viruses once you are infected it’s quite hard to get infected with the same virus on top.”

I can just mark your posts as "fake news" if you prefer.

[ladymuck]

Well, you can only become immune once you've had it, no?

There are plenty who test positive, but have shown no symptoms whatsoever.
The body must have built up immunity, which may be related to the viral load thing I was discussing earlier.

Not exactly. Some people have a genetic mutation that confers a level of natural immunity to a given pathogen.

But, for the majority, immunity would come from exposure.

[NotAllThere]

Not exactly. Some people have a genetic mutation that confers a level of natural immunity to a given pathogen.

Also some lucky people might have been exposed to a virus with similar enough proteins to confer immunity. There are so many viruses out there.

[MrMarkyMark]

Yes.
Fake news causes unnecessary fear and distress to the gullible and hard of thinking - fake news such as saying "if you and your family are all infected, you must stay away from each other"

Yes, Well done.

I posted the New Scientist link precisely because it does popularise science so non-scientists can understand it. But if you don't like it, try this one
expert reaction to questions about COVID-19 and viral load | Science Media Centre

“But there is no evidence for any suggestion that if everyone in a family is already sick they can they reinfect each other with more and more virus. In fact for other viruses once you are infected it’s quite hard to get infected with the same virus on top.”

I can just mark your posts as "fake news" if you prefer.

It's a very good article and largely agrees with what I originally posted actually.

"quite hard" leaves room for reasonable doubt then, doesn't state "impossible", I'm guessing it's because noone actually knows?

I mainly posted that to illustrate that the amount people are exposed to is very important, with regards to how sick you get.
I still believe that to be the case and stand by it and even your own article alludes to that.

Anyway, quite happy for you to label it "fake news", hopefully you will get off your high horse and feel much better for doing it

[Lance]

The Elephant in the room

Well, you can only become immune once you've had it, no?

There are plenty who test positive, but have shown no symptoms whatsoever.
The body must have built up immunity, which may be related to the viral load thing I was discussing earlier.

Your first point.... no idea. I’m not a viralologist.

Second. If you’re positive, ie. you’ve got it. You’re NOT immune. Yet.

Immune means you can’t get it. Your body has antibodies that kill the virus.
Asymptomatic is not immunity. It just means that your body is not as susceptible.

[NotAllThere]

I mainly posted that to illustrate that the amount people are exposed to is very important, with regards to how sick you get.

It is important to know whether it is true. The data suggests it isn't. "Hard to see" is scientist-speak for "unlikely". Science isn't definite. There's an extremely small chance that lying under your bed whispering "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" will offer you some protection.

Next time, post a link to a decent source. Exclude the scare-mongering.

[BR14]

It is important to know whether it is true. It's also important to know whether it turns people into flesh eating zombies (it doesn't). Next time, post a link to a decent source. Exclude the scare-mongering.

no chance. it's what he does.
misinformation and fearmongering with an overwhelming sense of self privilege is his forte.
along with his new chums, crashlanding, scobby doo and that janitor twat.

[MrMarkyMark]

Your first point.... no idea. I’m not a viralologist.

Second. If you’re positive, ie. you’ve got it. You’re NOT immune. Yet.

Immune means you can’t get it. Your body has antibodies that kill the virus.

None of us are

However, Lady Muck suggests that you can be naturally immune, in the case of a genetic mutation against certain pathogens.
Whether this is the case with Coronovirus noone yet knows.

Yes, actual immunity would usually come after, but some people never getting sick suggests that they have enough antibodies to fight it, whether this suggests some kind of natural immunity, or being exposed to a smaller viral load, I really couldn't tell you.

All of this is so new, to be fair, noone else could tell you definitevely either.