I don't have an opinion on omicron parties, other than leaning towards them being a bad idea, but how do people get stuff like this published?
Section heading:
"3. Your immunity will last months — not years"
The end of that section:
"So how much time does an infection buy you?
While that's hard to answer precisely, Townsend's team estimates that reinfection could occur somewhere between three months and five years after infection, with a median of 16 months. This is based on an analysis of data from previous antibodies to previous coronaviruses,
"At three to 16 months, you should be on notice," he says. "The clock is starting to tick again.""
So one researcher comes up with a model that suggests you might get reinfected between 3 months and 5 years after a primary infection, with a median of more than a year, and this author thinks the takeaway is "your immunity will last months, not years"?
To steel man the authors position, the research they are basing this on was published in October 2021, so pre omicron. Maybe they meant to argue that the reinfection period could be shorter now?
But they don't seem to actually say that. They just make a statement that is directly contradicted by the source that they're quoting.
In general, getting infected voluntarily is a bad idea.
It could have made sense if vaccines didn't exist. In fact, "vaccine" is the french word for cowpox, a disease less severe than smallpox but that left you immune from smallpox, and ultimately led to the discovery of vaccination. So we could consider getting omicron to protect yourself from a deadlier variant a primitive form of vaccination.
But vaccines exist, and they are much safer than getting infected by omicron.
Section heading:
"3. Your immunity will last months — not years"
The end of that section:
"So how much time does an infection buy you?
While that's hard to answer precisely, Townsend's team estimates that reinfection could occur somewhere between three months and five years after infection, with a median of 16 months. This is based on an analysis of data from previous antibodies to previous coronaviruses,
"At three to 16 months, you should be on notice," he says. "The clock is starting to tick again.""
So one researcher comes up with a model that suggests you might get reinfected between 3 months and 5 years after a primary infection, with a median of more than a year, and this author thinks the takeaway is "your immunity will last months, not years"?
To steel man the authors position, the research they are basing this on was published in October 2021, so pre omicron. Maybe they meant to argue that the reinfection period could be shorter now?
But they don't seem to actually say that. They just make a statement that is directly contradicted by the source that they're quoting.