Their experience as well as the fact the great majority of those contacting the virus quickly recover made we wonder if these people would now be immune to the virus in the future. I asked my scientific advisor if permanent immunity would result in the same way that we older people became immune to measles and the mumps when we contacted those diseases in childhood. Here is his response.
99% of those who recover will be immune to it. There are always some other possibilities given individual genetic and immune differences and personal body conditions. You are correct with the mumps analogy having the disease and recovering from it naturally probably affords more resistance than a vaccine against the disease. For a virus whether you get a vaccine or have the actual disease will usually take about 14 days for a person to develop full, lifetime, immunity to it.
Last week, Holman Jenkins, a respected columnist in the Wall Street Journal argued that there are two ways to deal with the Corona virus. We can try to contain it or mitigate it. Containment means trying to prevent the spread of the virus. Mitigation means allowing it to spread but taking steps to deal with those seriously infected.
It seems to me with the travel restrictions, school closings, and cancelling of public events we have tried to contain the spread of the virus. But I wonder if that is the right strategy. If over 90% of our population can become immune naturally with symptoms not much worse than the flu or a common cold, that would be a much better long term solution than trying to vaccinate the entire population.
Moreover, doctors on TV have pointed out how easy it is to mitigate the effects of the coronavirus. When you develop symptoms, just stay at home, take it easy and drink plenty of fluids. For most people the cure is right within our own bodies. If you run a fever, take something like Tylenol or just wait it out for a day or two. There is no need even to be tested unless you develop acute symptoms.
Interestingly, in another WSJ op-ed, a columnist claimed that Great Britain has opted for mitigation rather than try to contain the spread of the virus. However, its National Health Service, which has been seriously underfunded for years. would appear to be hard pressed to handle the number of new, serious cases especially in a timely manner.
Of course, we have been told that Senior citizens or those with high risk conditions like diabetes or immune system disorders are particularly vulnerable in the same way that they are to the flu. In the case of Seniors, etc., isolation and vaccination are priorities just as they are in every flu season. Actually, so far this season approximately 16000 deaths have been attributed to the flu, almost three times higher than the 6500 plus attributed to the coronavirus .
Oddly, children seem to be immune to the virus and so I wonder why we are closing schools all over the country. I know that people say the kids can bring it home and infect their grandparents but often they will have to stay home with their grandparents or just go to the mall.
Every year my wife and I get vaccinated against the flu. But experts don’t believe that it is necessary to inoculate the entire population against the flu that so far has claimed far more deaths than the coronavirus. At age 80 my wife and I are both in the high risk category but I think the majority of the population should be able to go back to work or go to school if they just stay home when they are sneezing or coughing.
Finally, another doctor who appeared on TV claimed that he was more worried about the future than the present. He believed that the current outbreak would peter out with the coming of spring and summer, but that it would return next winter and be even more serious. If that is the case, is it possible that the more people infected now with this relatively mild version of the virus, and become immune, the better it will be in the long term?
###
No comments:
Post a Comment