I think the article says: "Some scientists think that sometimes it may be better to tell your immune system to take it slow, such that you have fewer symptoms caused by the immune response".
We are already doing this, no?
Every time we take medication that lowers our fever during an infection (antipyretic ), we trade a bit of immune response for a much more comfortable illness.
The other aspect of this is that carrying more pathogen, for longer, increases the chance that you will infect others.
"increases the chance that you will infect others."
Or that it could do more damage, depending on the type of infection. For example, HPV os though to only lead to cancer for those who have a persistent infection for a few years.
I think the jury is still out whether the fever is beneficial of harmful for the recovery process in most common illnesses.
My personal theory is that fever arose as a specific mechanism against specific pathogen that humanity encountered some time in the past. Probably very lethal. The only people who survived were ones that were getting fever when encountering large number of various antigens. That pathogen I think is long gone and most human pathogens are completely not influenced by the fever. But the mechanism largely remained.
Or perhaps fever works against bacteria so if you keep yourself isolated when you are having viral disease it's useless, but if you still contact people when virally ill maybe fever protects you from secondary bacterial infection to some degree.
Most organisms function within a given temperature range. For example, try dropping the temperature to 0C or raising it to 60C and see how you like it.
Fever, I suspect, is the body trying to exceed the operating temperature range of the pathogen to either kill or impede it.
I don't know if there has been any research on this that either confirms my genius theory or disproves my rambling uninformed delusion.
Your parent knows that and says as much but says he believes all the pathogens this actually helps against are "long gone". It's the conventional wisdom on fever, not your genius theory or suspicion.
The body also does not go into fever mode for every kind of infection so I personally think that it's quite adapted to only "fevering" for the right kinds of pathogens, as in: yes it does still help/do something but there can of course be "imposters" that make you go into fever mode without it helping much.
Some people get fever that goes way too high and kills the host if we didn't have Ibuprofen and the like (or herbal remedies to the same effect). If none of those were available, the genes affecting this would naturally die out/become less prevalent. Which is along the lines of the article that "letting diseases run their course" might be beneficial in that sense.
Doesn't it also increase the odds that you'll create new variants of the illness? I remember a lot of theorizing that some COVID variants developed in immunocompromised individuals who hosted the virus for months.
Not sure why you got downvoted. But I believe you’re right. I did read that you should not take the otc pain reliever before the shot but can do so when symptoms develop after the shot.
Off topic but I'm curious. I've seen lots of people telling others they've been downvoted. How are you able to tell? Are you using a specific app or just the website, is there a number like reddit or just the slight greying seen in soon to die posts. Just curious since i have no ability to see downvotes
There's absolutely viruses that we tolerate currently and take basically no effort to fight, because in the vast, vast majority of the population they're benign. I had an organ transplant a couple of years ago, and as part of that I now have to do monthly blood screening for some of these benign diseases (CMV and BK) since they aren't as benign for someone on strong immunosuppressants.
Maybe this is a selfish thought, but moving towards tolerating diseases objectively increases risk for people like me who can't tolerate diseases to the same extent as others, and others tolerating them more increases the odds that I'll catch them, so this isn't a medical advancement I'm particularly excited about.
A lot of these benign viruses are turning up in diseases we go on to develop later in life, they might not be benign they just don't kill us right away.
Also when writing (as opposed to talking) you can actually use quotes (as demonstrated by the quotes around "quote unquote"). However in the case of "benign" the quotes are implying, correctly, that it's not benign at all.
My preferred method when talking is to use hand signals for quotes, question marks and on occasion, exclamation points.
If we're splitting hares, I feel like it's more likely to confuse people whose first language isn't English. Why introduce an incorrect parsing that sounds similar? That's more likely to lead learners astray than help them understand the idiom.
Why not? If you've got a hare to butcher, you'd likely want to split it. You could leave the carcass whole and roast it, but that's only one of the many ways to use the animal.
If you want to argue over details that make little difference though, I'd recommend using the term "splitting hairs" instead.
I was jesting but a serious reason why 'quote unquote' may be confusing is the fact that this kind of immediate negation is not considered correct grammar in any other context I know of.
I feel like writing quote-on-quote takes away the ability of non-native speakers to search for and learn the basis of the idiom. I really don't see how it would be more understandable than just typing "quote".
How would it be less likely to induce confusion? What is it even supposed to mean in that form? I had no idea what you were talking about until someone explained your error.
Right, but that shifts treatment of the disease from being mostly focused on elimination to a mixture of elimination (you're right that the article makes it clear that these researchers are not advocating abandoning elimination altogether) and building tolerance. That's inevitably going to shift focus away from trying to rid the patient of the virus when building tolerance is a more productive approach.
Which 100% sounds like the right approach to take and I don't consider this immoral or wrong or anything, just unfortunate.
It's both. You try to prevent the disease, but for those who get infected anyways, you try to improve their tolerance. In fact this research could potentially benefit the immunocompromised the most, in that they can't rely on their immune system to prevent buildup of pathogens so when they get sick they will likely end up with a larger number of pathogens compared to an individual with a healthy immune system. If research can find ways of stopping that larger buildup from damaging the body, then being immunocompromised is no longer as dangerous for the individual.
However, for those that have a weak immune response and also don't or can't get this new tolerance treatment, it would be a net negative, on that I can agree.
That 'survival of the fittest' interpretation is not the angle the article is coming from, I think. It's saying 'if you can control the symptoms, why worry if you have the disease?' Or rather, what if you were sufficiently tolerant to a pathogen you didn't display any symptoms.
I guess this is a very Dutch thing, but usually the GP here sends you home with the advise to take some rest, an antipyretic and call again if it gets worse or it doesn't go away after a week.
Still, interesting read - good this is thought and discussed about.
The time is that you send a kid at school until they "have temperature". Before that they sneeze, cough, whatever, together with the rest of the pupils. Eventually everyone gets ill and the general immunity increases.
When they are are ill it is paracetamol. It used to be also antibiotics, now an increasing number of GP do tests before.
EDIT: following up on comments, please note that I am neither the Ministry of Health, nor the Ministry of Education - just relying the status in France. And a parent who suffered of this first-hand.
Yes, and then they expose other kids who then take it home who in turn expose their parents. And as one of those parents I can't avoid getting ill so often through that one vector of exposure that I can't control that it stopped being funny long ago.
Better to get exposed to a wide variety of pathogens now while you're still relatively young and healthy so that you can build up immunity. That will protect you somewhat when you're older and your immune system becomes less effective.
> Before that they sneeze, cough, whatever, together with the rest of the pupils.
This is not a good thing - repeated infections with the same virus only cause damage. Then they infect parents or grandparents. Especially now that covid is about, and life expectancy has fallen across the world by several years.
Schools could install air purifiers for a few hundred bucks per room and greatly reduce infections
PS: a lot of responses perpetuate the urban legends about immunity. So I thought I would respond here:
1 - getting many infections as a child does not keep you safe when you are a pensioner. Immunity does not last the rest of your life.
Most vaccines need to be refreshed every 10 years. The proper term is Immunological memory, and is a complicated subject I don't fully grasp. That's why we had booster shots for COVID, immunity from it disappears quickly.
2 - getting infected is not consequence free. Just because you gully recovered does not mean you have no lasting damage. Serious infections cause microscopic damage in your organs. That damages is patched by connecting tissue / scar tissue. That tissue is not functional - if it patches a kidney, that kidney is less capable. You don't need to get Ebola to suffer damage - even a serious case of flu takes a toll.
3 - many immunities are worthless - for example the flu mutates every year, and if you want immunity from it, in UK we do flu vaccines. So if you want immunity from it, take every vaccine when it's offered. But if you got a vaccine 3 years ago, chances are that particular mutation will not reoccur in your life, and it offers no particular benefit ever again.
4 - pathogen load is a thing - you don't need to fall ill to generate immunity. When you are walking about, your body is getting tiny amount of pathogens - and most of the time the quantity is too small to get you sick, but your immune system deals with them. You do not get infected because someone sneezed 20 miles downwind and you inhaled 1 virus particle. Schools / kindergartens with poor ventilation create pathogen hot-tubs with unnaturally high pathogen loads. This is like an infection hot boxing. We know ventilation is terrible because often have CO2 concentration in excess of 2000. There is nothing natural about this, cavemen did not encounter such conditions. Improving ventilation reduces how many pathogens are floating in the air, even if the same number of kids are sneezing.
Bottomn line is, immune system is not like a dog that you train once, and it's also dangerous because you can get allergies or autoimmune diseases.
There is no evidence that subjecting people to excessive number of infection by creating disease petri-dish conditions in school has any benefit.
> Schools could install air purifiers for a few hundres bucks per room and greatly reduce infections
That may be true for teenagers and up and perhaps more crowded workplaces or university halls. But I think you are greatly underestimating how nasty and excessively touchy most kindergarten and primary school kids are, that really is not fixable with just HEPA filters. Kids will always be a bio-hazard agglomerate of disease vectors it is kind of unavoidable when you put them all together.
"This is not a good thing - repeated infections with the same virus only cause damage."
Or not, if immunisation was achieved, like it usually does. If you would keep the kids at home, everytime they have to sneeze, then the schools would be pretty empty in winter, general education level drops further and everyone will get sick again anyway, the first time they interact with other people outside their home, as they let their immune system without work.
The situation in the kindergarten was and is quite horrible after covid. All the diseases they did not get, while in lockdown - they got now and concentrated (that means, now it slowly seems to be moving towards normality).
So air purifiers might still be useful, but I think it is an illusion to think to be able to prevent all or most diseases. Sure, some very dangerous strains are to be taken with caution and if a lockdown would be really necessary, so be it. But infections are just a normal thing. Especially for children. This way they train their immune system step by step. So removing that step will be actually dangerous later on as there are quite some diseases that are quite mild for children, but deadly for adults, if they did not catch it as a child.
For Coronaviruses, there’s no long-term immunity that would prevent reinfection, nor does it confer immunity that would last into adulthood. It’s measured in weeks and months. In the case of COVID, infecting children over and over again does not result in “training” their immune system, but instead weakens it, resulting in things like the pediatric care crisis we’ve seen in the US over the past year or so (as children were made more vulnerable to other diseases after having COVID).
When you're young you have your best chance by far against most diseases, and after you've had it you likely pick up some degree of immunity to it (and other things like it) that you carry with you when you become a parent, or a grandparent. One of the signs of age is how rarely you catch flus. All those mutations recycle and even though you've become weak, you've built up a library.
Not all diseases behave like that, and all should be treated differently. Really you should just do public health, and have statistics, and let those make the decisions instead of doing policy by omission, or deciding by intuition.
> The proper term is Immunological memory, and is a complicated subject I don't fully grasp.
It’s very obvious. You’re citing a popsci video while accusing others of falling prey to urban legends, and declining to offer references to the people asking for them.
Let me be unequivocal: all the points you’ve made are inaccurate (except #2), because you lack this fundamental understanding of the difference between adaptive and innate immunity, and the value of paratope diversity.
“Getting sick” (i.e. an infection reaching the point where it causes clinical symptoms) is crucial for the development of the adaptive immune response, whereby the body tries “randomized” antibody structures until it develops new ones that can bind to an antigen. Having a broad range of antibodies developed through this process, called somatic hypermutation, is important because your body uses prior antibodies it’s developed as starting points for developing targets against new antigens, so even for rapidly evolving targets like the flu, exposure to previous strains still can help stack the odds in the body’s favor.
Thank you for the link, I will check it out - I am upfront about my relative ignorance. I wanted to challenge the conventional wisdom because I feel our responce to COVID / etc. was haphazard.
At the moment my faith in Schools, very rigid institutions, to adapt and properly consider risks to children is essentially zero.
Why is this not a good thing? Could you please expand upon this, or offer some sources that support your claim?
Isn't it also the case that lowered exposure to general pathogens, also decreases general tolerance and resistance to them, leading to more complications down the line? Thus living in a clinically scrubbed environment can also be equally as harmful, which could also be part of the aftermath of 2020?
This is of course anecdotal, but personally I never had such a bad influenza as after that period of severe isolation, when I finally started meeting people again. And the same is true for many of my colleges, one of which contracted Asthma due to the severity of the disease. This was regular influenza after isolation, and not Corona, btw.
> Why is this not a good thing? Could you please expand upon this, or offer some sources that support your claim?
I expanded my reply, but why would it be a good thing? Think about it - 'getting ill is good for you' is a counter-intuitive claim, and the only reason you are asking me for proof, is that you have gotten used to accepting this urban legend.
This is not 'natural infections' -> there is no natural situation where you stuff 30 monkeys in a box with poor ventilation and raise CO2 concentration to 2000 ppm, so that the few sick monkeys can achieve really high concentration of pathogens.
I think the idea that it is 'good' is civilisational copium. It's like when people claimed that sending kids into coal mines builds character.
> Think about it - 'getting ill is good for you' is a counter-intuitive claim, and the only reason you are asking me for proof, is that you have gotten used to accepting this urban legend.
Sorry, "getting ill is good for you" is not what I meant to convey. Instead, what I wrote is that lowered exposure to general pathogens, also decreases general tolerance and resistance to them. This means that it's very likely detrimental to live in "clinically" clean and filtered environments, as it is also detrimental to live in isolation for too long.
The most extreme example of this are all the natives who got sick and died as the conquistadors arrived in South America. They died because they had no prior exposure, and thus no defense against, the pathogens that the Europeans unknowingly brought with them. Thus I'm fairly sure that it's trivial to prove that prolonged isolation will also lower your tolerance for common influenza pathogens. I don't know this, of course, but I'm sure an experiment where both yours and my claim were tested would be very interesting to read!
This is not a particularly strongly true statement, and in fact there is quite a lot of evidence that for the vast majority of coughs/colds/viral infections it is in fact false. This is evidenced by the surge in infections a child (or a new nursing or medical student) receives on starting daycare/hospital. For sure COVID and the Flu have significant flow on effects to the population but COVID aside (there is some weird evidence coming through about repeated infections in different populations here) having an infection pretty much always results in a significantly reduced second round (or you are, in fact, immune)
> This is evidenced by the surge in infections a child (or a new nursing or medical student) receives on starting daycare/hospital.
I don't think this is evidence that getting sick as a nurse in daycare is good for you. This only evidences that people adapt to an repeat infection and environment with pathogens.
The comparison should be made against a person that never had to go to daycare and never had to get sick there -> would they be more or less healthy.
I am not an immunologist of-course, but everything I read indicates that this conventional wisdom is build on misunderstanding of the immune system .
> There is no evidence that subjecting people to excessive number of infection by creating disease petri-dish conditions in school has any benefit.
Genuine question: what defines “excessive”? The way you put this seems to bury the actual question at hand, which determining what level of illness policy, sanitation, etc. is too much?
"Unless you’re willing to put them in a plastic bubble until they are adults and stop doing that, they’re going to get sick."
And in practice, this would be a really bad idea, because the moment you open that plastic bubble, all the pathogens that are constantly in the air anyway, will hit them bad, as they are totally unprepared for it.
One of the theories why children put everything in their mouth, is exactly to expose them to world of microorganisms early on, so they can get used to it, while their immune system is developing.
Your comment is full of medical misinformation. Immunity does persist a lifetime to a limited extent for most pathogens. Even if a virus evolves there is still some level of immunity.
I had a severe muscle pain once, like so bad that I literally could not stand the pain. I had to hold on to someone or something to move. The doctor prescribed an opioid and it did nothing. Then he suggested I try 800 mg tylenol for arthritis and it got me to the point where I could at least walk.
if we tolerated disease - as man did from time immemorial, we would allow diseases to reach a steady state. We would soon die out as a race due to population decline as we are well below the required rate of replacement in a diseased population. We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5 - as they did in the 1700-1800's.
Survivors might be more resistant, but I and many others do not feel this is a good strategy.
Nature 'saw' the need for an immune system - it was that or die.
About 90% of the native populations of North, South and Central America died from the diseases brought from Europe by Columbus and those that followed. This huge wave of deaths spread from the points of contact by tribal passage and preceded the later growth of hybrid populations of europeans/natives. It was only by later LIDAR surveys of large land areas that these ancient agricultural zones were revealed - some of which are now being explored - large structures - over grown by vegetation. Some were killed by older disease spreads prior to Columbus - it is not a new/unique phenomenon.
So the article's premise is false - we can not back to the old ways.
That said, a better understanding might allow the linked pathogen/prey relationship between diseases and their host populations to be broken - as we have done with smallpox?
>We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5
We could also make rising children less of an obstacle. If you build the infrastructure around rising children so that rising 2 children is not a full-time job, then parents would get more children.
There is little evidence of that. Countries with more support do not necessarily retain higher fertility rates. Look at e.g. the legal right to nursery places with capped costs, long parental leave, and subsequent financial aid in Norway. It might be it'd happen if you exceed a certain level of support, but we've not cracked that nut yet.
I think coat housing still bites even in norway. I am relatively cobfident that cheap housing would allow improved birthrates.
If population declines, maybe housing will get cheaper, but our current system directs unhealthy amount of cash into houaing market and inflates it beyong it's natural state.
While I think addressing prices are important, consider that the high housing costs reflects drastic increases in income. The living standard in Norway has increased massively from when I was a child there, and the benefits given to families with children as well. Yet birth rates have declined in parallel with the increasing wealth.
> high housing costs reflects drastic increases in income.
But it doesn't, housing prices have. roughly doubled in UK for example since 2008, and wages have fallen.c
If you measure housing cost is multiples of income, they have grown massively in the past 70 years. If the price of chicken went up as much as price of housing over the same period, a chicken would cost like $55 or smth
What matters is the long term trends and the multiple is less relevant than the affordability of the monthly cost of housing, or there wouldn't be sufficient buyers able to afford driving the costs up.
The multiple of my mortgage to income is higher than for my parents, but I'm still left with more spending power left over, because my lending is cheaper, the LTV higher, and not all the other costs have increased at a similar rate.
Overall, despite a higher proportion of my income going to housing, I'm far better off than my parents were at my age.
I am not sure about your personal situation, but my parents paid off their property faster because it was cheaper, despite higher interest rates. After 15 Years all theie property is fully paid. They are much better off now.
And low interest rates didn't last, now they are back up in Europe, so people with large mortgages are not having to make huge repayments and will be making them for the next 30 years.
generally speaking we have more capital tied up in housing than we do in productive economy. This is inefficient deployment of capital and is not economically healthy.
I think this is a distraction. It's very simple: House prices reflects peoples ability and willingness to pay. The demand doesn't come from nothing. If people couldn't pay,there wouldn't be demand no matter how much people would like to.
Meanwhile, in the UK where I am now, there is plenty of empty housing at lower cost.
What there is a lack of is housing people want to pay for where they want to pay for it, because many - not all - can afford to be picky.
That's not to say it wouldn't be a tremendous benefit to society to drive down house prices, because it would, but the housing market is elastic:
People can, and have (and many still do), lived in far more cramped conditions, and do when they can't afford to pay more.E.g. house shares and the like.
The actual problem of high prices is a level of inequality that means a subset struggle more. But that is insufficient to explain e.g. fertility rates across the board when the overall wealth is at it is.
Considering my original example, if you look at indications of disposable income in Norway, you'll see people e.g. taking far more holidays abroad, far more have holiday homes, etc. despite spending more on housing.
Overall wealth is through the roof and you see it everywhere. And yet fertility rates are not.
This is also consistent with the development we see everywhere in the world. It's played out in country after country, and is an effect that plays out over many decades.
Once women gained control of their own fertility - they voted with their bodies. Many of the old large families were, in essence, forced on women, to the detriment of many as death was common in childbirth until late in the 19th century.
I'm not familiar with Norway's culture. Personally, if I had access to these benefits, I would have more children and faster. But I do see people who have the financial means and time to raise children who view children as a restriction of their life experience.
This seems to be the challenge. Some people will have more kids if they can, but a lot of others will see more money as an opportunity to do all kinds of things that are hard to combine with having more kids. There may well be a balancing point where beyond a certain level of wealth people will start having more kids again, but so far we haven't found it.
We do sacrifice a lot of our time to raise children. But it's the cost of childcare that makes it really difficult imo. Unless you have a high paying job, you are quite literally going to work so you can afford to pay other people to watch your children while you're at work.
If that were the main factor you’d expect to see much higher fertility rates in French families for example, which isn’t really the case (especially if you exclude families of foreign descent)
True, many women/couples delay children, but look at Japan where the population has been in decline for many years to the point that there are thousands of empty houses - the converses of many places where zoning rules designed to block new homes for the express reason of forcing scarcity = upwards $$.
There is huge inertia in the trades to build it the old way = codes the old way.
We even have laws that mandate windows in all rooms from the days when coal/wood fireplaces were in every room. We got central heat, but we still build no inner rooms with no windows these days. Want a window = wall screen with a video of a scene you like - not brick walls 6 feet away.
The article is about research into non-immune system based adaptive systems of the body that reduce disease susceptibility - i.e why some animals and people can tolerate higher bacterial or viral loads without dying then others, and can we develop drugs which enhance these effects or augment them (i.e. giving glucose support to malaria infected rats which arr experiencing an overactive drop in glucose production due to natural responses to effects of malaria).
It's about therapeutic agents to boost survivability without looking directly at pathogen kill paths - it is admittedly weirdly titled.
Please edit out swipes like the first sentence here. The rest of your comment would be just fine without that.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. One of them is "Edit out swipes", and there's even another about this specific case:
"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
> We would soon die out as a race due to population decline as we are well below the required rate of replacement in a diseased population
Isn't there a strong correlation between birth rate & child mortality? Most rich societies have slowed down their birth rate in large part because you don't need 5 kids in order to ensure 1 makes it to adulthood.
If we tolerated disease, we would probably increase birth rates to compensate for the spike in child mortality.
Conversely, increasing child mortality necessarily increases child care effort per adult child: a bad deal that can only be compensated by having children at a significantly younger age.
Illness is largely a function of overall health. As a society, we generally lead very unhealthy lives: eating mountains of processed food, working too much, sitting indoors and staring at screens. We have a failed concept of the nuclear family, which means very little support with child-rearing, and soaring costs around everything involving the home and family.
All of this stacks the deck against the majority of Americans.
Is it any wonder our bodies cannot fight off disease naturally?
When you also add in that we have an absurd fear of illness and death, our behaviors get more and more neurotic, which then adds to the stress, which then further compromises our health.
> Is it any wonder our bodies cannot fight off disease naturally?
You need to prove that we could previously. The various plagues and epidemics (Athens, Antonine, and Black to namea few) are excellent proof that returning to unprocessed food won't much help.
> When you also add in that we have an absurd fear of illness and death
The Momento Mori rose in response to the Black Plague, so that's not new either.
I’m not sure that you understand the meaning of nuclear family. It is a family composed of mom, dad, and kids. This differs from single parent households. You may want to rethink what you wrote.
We've already reached a point where medicine, in some cases, is doing more damage than good. Plastic surgery is clear example of this.
Followed by surgery like gastric bypass which is largely ineffective long-term, but of course they don't track it long term. People return to old habits, and the body tries to adapt, but now with newly crippled digestive system.
"Everything in moderation" is something we've not learned yet, as a culture.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your message, there are quite a few meta-analyses on pubmed on the long-term safety and efficacy of gastric bypass surgery. They mostly show that while some patients do end up back obese, the majority do improve on many markers of health (weight, diabetes, ...).
Here's an example of a study if you're interested [1]!
Plastic surgery is one of those things you are much more likely to notice if it's done poorly then well. This, ironically, makes people think most plastic surgery is "bad" when really most plastic ic surgery that you notice is bad.
There is elective plastic surgery for fashion reasons and there is reconstruction after trauma or to correct birth defects, you should probably not toss the two into the same bin.
There is also elective plastic surgery to help address body dysmorphia. And even "fashion reasons" aren't as frivolous as some would think. A lot of people will judge you based on "fashion reasons," and being able to address that can potentially measurably improve you life. There are plenty of studies that have shown that people perceived as "more beautiful" are more respected and have an easier life. The inverse is also true, and being able to address that is powerful.
I help merchants sell fruits, eat many, forage also in my area, people are always a bit shocked when I directly eat tomatoes, kiwis (with their skin), dates, peppers without washing them, but I don't get ill at all, my immune system is probably stronger than theirs after decades of a forager lifestyle, it sorts what needs to be, digest correctly
This is how it already works. Vaccines are just a learning experience for the immune system, which is the one doing the actual work. Vaccines per se do not cure diseases.
The neutralizing antibodies aren't durable, so protection against infection and mild illness wanes, but the T-cells that protect against hospitalization and death are likely permanent.
"And vaccines work because they teach immune systems to recognize — and so more effectively resist — pathogens before the actual bug is encountered." Is a bold claim that has yet to be proven empirically.
"A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease." ... "The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future."
What proof do you require? The first vaccines for smallpox were literally teaching the immune system to fight it by using the less dangerous but very similar cowpox. If you were infected with cowpox you were much less likely to be sick with smallpox. What are you taking exception to there, and if you are taking exception, please describe in detail what proof you'd require.
We take it for granted, we believe that we have the right to exist. At every turn we're trying to defeat death and illness. Trying to defeat nature's (and the planet's) mechanisms of a form of population control.
Then on the other hand, we sort of complain about overpopulation.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see people die, but on the other hand I fully understand that we must die. Me must get ill.
>I don't want to see people die, but on the other hand I fully understand that we must die
Those are not mutually compatible
Well, unless you take some esoteric interpretation where one can be absolved from the immediate implications of what they think are the most desirable states for the universe
If one considers it necessary for people to die, one wants people to die. It's part of the whole considering death necessary
Maybe we aren't, but the deeply ingrained believe that we are may certainly be useful. I hate lies or partial truths, but if the full truth is incomprehensible by our intellects, the best we can do is live with and by models and mantra's that are helpful in making the now a nice place to be.
Not that we should even give up the search for more truth, at least, that's one of my mantras.
We are already doing this, no?
Every time we take medication that lowers our fever during an infection (antipyretic ), we trade a bit of immune response for a much more comfortable illness.
The other aspect of this is that carrying more pathogen, for longer, increases the chance that you will infect others.