The Immunity Canard?
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
In the ongoing debate about when and how to end the improper government lockdowns of entire states, I keep hearing the terms testing, long-term immunity, and vaccine being bandied about.
I'm skipping testing for active infection because: (1) It looks to me like the cat of contact tracing as a means of containing the disease left that bag long ago (It is still valuable as a way of warning people about possible exposure.), and (2) Testing for those who need it would appear to be in adequate supply.
It's the question of immunity and the closely-related one of vaccination that I want to consider here, because I think it illustrates how ridiculous statewide, indefinite lockdowns are, setting aside whether they are legal or moral, which they are not.
The following paragraph comes from Allahpundit of Hot Air, one of the better conservative layman commentators I know of, as he discusses Rand Paul's trenchant questions for Anthony Fauci, yesterday:
Either the disease confers long-term immunity or it doesn't. (My best guess is that it confers temporary (months to years) immunity.) And we will eventually develop a vaccine or we won't. (I am optimistic about this, but still.)I'll say this for Paul, though. I think he's pinpointed the two most consequential mysteries about the disease so far, solutions to which would vastly improve our decision-making. One is whether antibodies to the virus produce durable immunity, a question in which Paul has a personal stake given that he contracted COVID-19 awhile ago. He's impatient with scientists' reluctance to say flatly that people who have recovered are now immune and can go back to work. I understand that, but I'm also not sure what the alternative is. Without a study to confirm immunity, how are world governments supposed to potentially tell tens of millions of recovered patients that they're in the clear? Imagine if they gave that assurance without evidence and then some started getting sick again. [bold added]
Image by CDC, via Unsplash, license.
As for the question in bold, isn't it funny how governments are basing decisions about such intrusive policies on worst-case scenarios about contagiousness, and rates of hospitalizations and deaths -- and yet isn't doing so for immunity or vaccination? What if there isn't long-term immunity and we never develop a safe or effective vaccine? Does that mean we stay jailed in our homes -- or subject to indefinite detention without warning -- forever? Note further that these "precautions" don't even hold the full medical context, let alone other considerations, like economics or education, both of which are also important to human life, and both of which are taking a beating.
It's time to question both relying on the government for everything, and using out-of-context, worst-case scenarios as guidance.
The question in bold shouldn't be, "How are governments supposed to tell us we're in the clear?" It should be, "Why are we sitting on our hands, waiting for these questions to be answered to the satisfaction of someone else -- rather than learning how to live our lives with this virus lurking around?
These questions may take years to answer fully, if they can be answered at all.
We are not serving ourselves well by hoping for a sort of instant old normal to be delivered by the grace of a shot or a nonfatal infection. We need to each assess risks and rewards for ourselves and act accordingly. Some of us may have to live like hermits for a time, or even permanently. Others have very little to fear, and should choose to carry on, with due caution for the elderly and the less-well. And many lie somewhere in between.
It is unconscionable that government officials are making those choices for us, rather than ensuring that we respect the rights of others as we make and act on difficult decisions during a difficult time. Physical existence in a prison is not a human life, and there are no guarantees in life. We must insist that the government quit pretending otherwise and forcing us to go along.
-- CAV
P.S. Assuming we can acquire permanent immunity, or at least immunity of a predictable-enough duration, it is conceivable that proof of such could legitimately be used in some situations (e.g., as a condition for certain kinds of employment, or in court cases alleging endangerment by the disease). This does not mean we have to wait until this is known to begin to try to function somewhat normally again.
4 comments:
Hey Gus,
'Either the disease confers long-term immunity, or it doesn't.'
I am not sure this statement is entirely correct. I could conceive of a situation in which the virus confers partial immunity; it makes infection less likely but not impossible, perhaps requiring higher viral loads.
More importantly, I disagree with the implication of Allahpundit’s statement:
‘Without a study to confirm immunity, how are world governments supposed to potentially tell tens of millions of recovered patients that they're in the clear?’
Do we need proof, or do we assume the normal in the absence of proof of the abnormal? Shouldn’t the answer be: it is very very likely that you are in the clear.
Scientists have good reason to believe that infection by the virus will grant immunity. Over several months we have yet to experience a confirmed case of reinfection and conferring immunity is what all similar viruses do. If there was a confirmed case, I’m sure the media would talk of nothing else for a few days.
In fact, apart from severely immuno-compromised people, I am unaware of any example in which viral infection bestows zero immunity. Every virus I can think of works that way and it’s hard to imagine an MOA by which a virus could escape this.
The same principle applies to other arguments. People have argued with me that there is no proof that UV light kills the virus on surfaces, yet we know UV light breaks chemical bonds; viruses are unprotected protein and DNA which is comprised of chemical bonds. I am pretty sure Covid19 cannot break the laws of physics. The question is only how fast it breaks down, but it will be like other coronaviruses. This is kind of like saying I have no proof my car cannot go 300 mph, because I haven’t tested that yet.
As an aside, the issue I think is whether we can get enough of the virus from surfaces to infect or seriously infect us. According to the CDC, that isn’t yet known but interestingly in this case, they assume it can without evidence. It seems like their position on whether to make an assumption without evidence flips back and forth to always favor the most negative possibility.
"I am not sure this statement is entirely correct. I could conceive of a situation in which the virus confers partial immunity; it makes infection less likely but not impossible, perhaps requiring higher viral loads."
Actually, it IS correct in the sense I keep hearing people discussing immunity. As with immunity for a time, the partial immunity you describe is an example of us not being bullet-proof after an infection. And something that people seem to not be talking about at all. IIRC, norovirus infection gives partial, temporary immunity to further infection.
Immunity is not guaranteed at all, but I agree that it likely exists at least for a time and could be partial. I somehow doubt that people speaking of "immunity passports" have such an understanding.
It just occurred to me that resistance is a more precise and scientific term than immunity and it is probably the word we should be using for these discussions where the outcome is unknown. Rather than invoking an all or nothing image like immunity, it would be immediately clear that resistance by its nature is often partial.
The good news is that even partial resistance is likely to take an already not-so-lethal threat down another notch. The bad news is that if our bodies cannot provide lasting immunity, creating a efficacious vaccine may not be possible.
"[I]f our bodies cannot provide lasting immunity, creating a efficacious vaccine may not be possible."
Exactly.
And thank you for introducing the better term.
Post a Comment