Medical Ethicist at UC Irvine on leave for challenging vaccine mandate

Re:Medical Ethicist at UC Irvine on leave for challenging va... by Retric on Thursday October 07, 2021 @01:53AM (#28782615)

It’s not just one small study for example here’s: Not all persons recovering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection develop SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

I granted severe infections do result in a strong immune response, but simply having a positive test result isn’t the sign of long term immunity people assume. That said, surviving COVID also implies a healthy immune system which is a rather morbid example of survivorship bias.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Medical Ethicist at UC Irvine on leave for challenging va... by throwoutway on Thursday October 07, 2021 @09:00AM (#28785631)

> but simply having a positive test result isn’t the sign of long term immunity people assume

You were overly dismissive in your first mention of this. Do you have data behind the tests being false positive? Multiple positive tests + symptoms are surely sufficient

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Medical Ethicist at UC Irvine on leave for challenging va... by Retric on Thursday October 07, 2021 @09:45AM (#28786154)

That really depends on the tests and time period. False positive rates depend not just in the test but also the percentage of population infected. Unfortunately many people where diagnosed based on symptoms or a single test which was inaccurate. At the time telling someone to self isolate based on an inaccurate test and only preforming more accurate testing if they got really sick was considered acceptable.

In a study of 14 of the approved tests, one of the tests gave false positives more than 15% of the time, and three others gave false positives more than 10% of the time. https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/which-COVID-19-te...

[ Parent | on HN ]