Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

Re:Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' vi... by majormajor on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @05:46PM (#23024774)

> This hypothesis ("SARS-Cov19 does not confer immunity") falls roughly under the same category as intelligent design: the claim is so exceptional that it's a priori unlikely to be found true, and laypeople are taking normal scientist hedge-speak and exaggerating the meaning in their heads (e.g. "evolution is just a theory").

So call the null hypothesis "there will be some level of immunity." But then you see some people testing positive again, and it's reasonable to want to know why. I didn't see people officials leaping to planning for zombie apocalypse "we're all gonna get it over and over forever" scenarios, I saw people saying we needed to dig deeper.

A lot of people in this discussion are refuting a straw man idea that everyone had decided "clearly you get no immunity at all".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' vi... by stale2002 on Thursday April 30, 2020 @02:15AM (#23027930)

> But then you see some people testing positive again, and it's reasonable to want to know why.

I have been following the statements of experts ever since this myth made headlines.

And despite what the headlines said, the opinions of experts has always been clear. That being that these "reinfections" were the result of dead virus material being detected.

So, no it is not reasonable to have ever believed this, if you had listened to the experts.

[ Parent | on HN ]