This kind of framing is so infuriating. The evidence for immunity IS iffy, because the underlying scientific question hasn't been resolved yet. It's not contrarianism or virtue-signaling or hoping for bad news to say we don't know when we don't, in fact, know.
And if a crucial scientific question hasn't yet been resolved, it's crucial that we act in a way that's consistent with the possibility that the answer won't be the one we're hoping for. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst is what we HAVE to do.
I was having this conversation with Mel the other day, working through the knowns and unknowns of a possible visit to see my parents upstate sometime this summer. I'd LOVE to do that—get out of the city, be outside with the kids, sit around a campfire with my folks. I'd love it.
And based on what we've been doing to protect ourselves, and what's known about transmission of the virus, I think we could probably do it safely. But "probably" isn't good enough for the risk of killing my parents. So we're sitting tight until we have more data.
And this is where so many of us are right now: Thinking that X is probably safe, but that the possibility that it's not is too high to risk. That's prudent behavior.
And it's an approach that doesn't just protect ourselves, but also lowers the risk for people who HAVE to take those risks. Me staying at home makes the sidewalks less crowded. Me staying out of the supermarket makes going to the supermarket safer for those who have no choice.
Having a fruitful discussion in replies, by the way, with an immunologist who believes that the data on post-infection immunity from SARS1 and MERS gives us reason to be very optimistic about COVID-19. That's heartening to hear.
But there's a diversity of opinion from experts on the question of HOW optimistic we should be, with plenty of folks—as below—arguing that while the evidence points in a positive direction, some crucial questions remain unanswered. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
And as always, there's a danger in translating scientific conclusions into advice for individuals regarding personal behavior.
In the US today, there are millions, maybe tens of millions of people walking around who think they've already had the virus. Many of them are correct. Many of them are mistaken. Most of them haven't been tested.
So public consumption messaging around post-infection immunity has to be qualified for that reason as well, since if you tell people they're 100% safe after they've been infected, a lot of people who haven't actually had the virus are going to conclude they're in the clear.
It's a really hard question—how to convey information to the public in such a way as to prioritize accuracy and transparency while minimizing the chances of misuse of the data. There isn't an easy answer.
It's not inappropriate for Silver to highlight the fact that the evidence of post-infection immunity seems to be trending in a positive direction. But his "a lot of high-information news consumers seem to think the evidence for immunity to COVID is iffy, but" isn't useful.
Particularly since the very next clause in the tweet, "there are uncertainties," underscores the fact that many scholars believe the evidentiary question HASN'T been conclusively resolved.
I suspect Silver would say that "iffy" implies more radical doubt than "uncertainty," and yeah, as a copyeditor, sure. They're distinct. Fine. But both are mushy terms, and contraposing them like this is demanding a LOT of work from that distinction.
Silver has made a lot of hay over the years dunking on conventional wisdom, and he's been right more than he's been wrong. But that kind of dunking has specific consequences when you're tweeting about the public response to a global pandemic.
