An earnest and serious question for @DoctorYasmin and other doctors: if "immunity" lasts for "at least" three months," how is "re-infection" at *all* likely *within* 3 months?
I'm not understanding how the words "unlikely," "immunity," "lasts," or "at least" are being used here.
I'm not understanding how the words "unlikely," "immunity," "lasts," or "at least" are being used here.
PS/ In other words, if I get COVID-19, recover, and become "immune" from getting it again for "at least three months," it means I *cannot* get it for three months, right? Because I'm "immune"? So why would we say that it's only "unlikely" I'll get it during a period I'm "immune"?
PS2/ I assumed "up to three months" was the term being used because I actually *don't*—in that situation—have "immunity" at all, I'm merely "unlikely" to get COVID-19 a second (or subsequent) time for a period of three months, therefore my "immunity" isn't absolute or guaranteed.
PS3/ I'd never tell lay Americans they're "immune" from something—for any duration—if what I mean is they're just "unlikely" to get something. I know vaccines/immunizations are always imperfect—so that concept is out there—but we're dealing with a scared public. Maybe be clearer?
PS4/ "Immunity" means one thing in law, another in medicine (see below), another to laypeople in a crisis. My guess is we'd do better to just tell folks you're "unlikely" to get reinfected for 90 days after COVID-19 recovery. Leave the word "immunity" out. theatlantic.com/health/archive…
PS5/ I know—most do—that vaccines/immunizations aren't 100% effective. Which is why we don't give someone a vaccine and say "Congratulations! You're immune now!"We know how that'd confuse them. But here—in a crisis—the CDC and others are using the word "immune" far too liberally.
PS6/ @DoctorYasmin wrote that, post-recovery, "immunity lasts for at least 3 months." I assume she knows—and that we all know—that a layperson, hearing those words, may think they're "invincible" for 3 months *and* maybe will press their luck about being "invincible" even longer?
PS7/ Here's what CNN says (@JacqEHoward) and it doesn't seem to have the same level of certainty to it as what @DoctorYasmin says—so I don't know if she's calling the expertise or journalism at CNN into question. This is all *very* confusing for laypeople. cnn.com/2020/08/14/hea…
PS8/ By the way, I've *zero* expertise in this area and claim none. I'm just a communications expert telling these doctors they're confusing people by using in-field jargon—and a journalist telling them that they seem to be disagreeing with one another, however much they deny it.
NOTE/ In crises, experts in different fields must work together—as all disaster response is interdisciplinary. So it's actually a fraught moment when anyone says "stand back—I'm an expert!" We need collaborations between and amongst different kinds of experts to serve the public.
NOTE2/ Postmodernism is anti-collaborative; it sees power dynamics—a dialectic—in every exchange. Either the communications expert is "overruling" the doctor or shuts up. But I'm a metamodernist *because* that's not reality—we work together *by* respecting each other's expertise.
NOTE3/ I'd love to see more collaborations between doctors and communications experts. The docs can explain what needs to get out; the comms folks can propose a framing and a lexicon; the docs then confirm whether it's medically appropriate and accurate. Teamwork—not competition.
