'Infection blocking immunisation' to #COVID19 lasts for longer than might have been anticipated at the beginning of the pandemic (~1-2 years on average). 'Symptom reducing immunity' likely for far longer (possibly decades).
1/ https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1238837167142641664
Thus there's no point endlessly re-running the same alarmist headlines, leading to the same futile debate every time a new study comes out and adds next to nothing to our knowledge on the duration of #COVID19 immunisation time.
Also, 'Infection blocking immunisation' is a priori expected to be roughly similar for a natural infection than for a vaccine. Vaccines tend to provide somewhat shorter lived immunity (especially recombinant ones), despite some exceptions to this pattern (e.g. HPV)
As such, it would be helpful if everyone refrained form rehearsing the same futile arguments why #COVID19 shorter/longer #COVID19 immunisation time makes strategy X or Y impossible, or conversely the only one available.
At the end of the day, a sufficient proportion of the population needs to be immunised, through vaccines or infection. #COVID19 cannot be eliminated globally but once immunity has built up, morbidity/mortality should fall in line with other respiratory viruses in circulation.
Thus, whatever one's pet #COVID19 suppression / mitigation strategy, evidence that immunisation last for longer than expected is good news, whilst shorter than expected is bad news. That said, it happens that there hasn't been any good/bad news on that front for months.
You can follow @BallouxFrancois.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: