If some propose that children's immune systems were harmed in 2020 by spending time in minimal/no contact with others, they should apply testable hypotheses and data in support.
eg, Children have always lived on remote islands & farms, isolated for weeks/months at a time. 1/5
1. What types of immune dysfunction are they at risk of and how do these effects manifest in health data? The list from AlKhater shows what you would measure.
And ask the flying doctors. Are country children known for being particularly sickly?
2. If remote children move to a town/mainland (eg, for schooling) they encounter infections that are new to them. Do they suddenly start getting more serious illness than other children? How many years would you expect the immunity debt to continue? Again, measurable in data.
3/5
From my pov, my prev clinical experience + research reading suggest that for children living in remote places but otherwise materially comfortable, social isolation is def a challenge for them & distance from hospital can be a worry in an emergency. But not really infections.
4/5
So with certain children living in more intense & more prolonged isolation than Covid lockdowns and decades of health data available, why was 'immunity debt' not described until 2021?
Why didn't we see this issue before Covid arrived?
The onus is on its proponents to explain.
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This analogy isn't just incorrect, it’s actively harmful. The immune system is nothing like a muscle.
Immunity isn't the goal: health is the goal. There's no net benefit to health post infection, & ++ potential harms. Aiming for immunity at the expense of health is indefensible.
Alongside infection-generated immunity to pathogens, well-described health impacts include death, multiple organ damage, autoimmunity, cancers, lower immunity to other infections, birth defects, disruption of microbiome and gut barrier, viral persistence/reactivation and more.
I don’t know why measles was used as an example in the pictured tweet. Measles is a devastating epidemic pathogen that famously causes immune amnesia, ie, previously-acquired immunity is lost, increasing the risk of further infections. The immune system is not a muscle.
It's hard to wrap one's brain around the idea of a new, serious, common disease.
One reaction is to see plain statements of risk as fear-mongering. Another is not to see yourself in statements of risk, because after all, you've never lost anyone or died from a pandemic before.
You can see this brain wrinkle in statements intended to reassure, eg "Most children will be fine". The statement is true, but is it grounds for permitting infection to spread? Only if you subconsciously assume that the children you care about will always be in that "most" group.
That's why one of the jobs of public health is to advocate for protection for all:
- those who are high risk & experience 'reassurance' like the above as explicit proof that their lives are not valued, &
- those who are low risk & will be blindsided when the unthinkable happens.
This article is a v good explanation about Covid-19 immunity. It’s also (inadvertently) a v good explanation of why it’s vital to pick the right strategic goals. If you make immunity your strategic goal instead of population health, logic will walk you to some strange places. 1/
NZ no longer has a well-defined pandemic strategy - a key policy gap. I’ve put down some ideas about why it’s critical to choose the right goal - & why hybrid immunity doesn’t make the grade.
(I’m certain the author and commentators are all clearly aware of this fact, btw).
2/
Why ‘immunity’ is not a coherent or defensible strategic goal in a pandemic: a🧵
The images in this tweet are a 2-page text for those who prefer - but the thread will have the complete text (slightly shortened). 3/
It's an interesting question, how you assess potential harms from a new pathogen. My own approach with Covid and children has been: 1. All major childhood infections have potential for post-acute impacts so the question was 'what and how much' not 'whether' there would be impacts
2. Rule 1, 2, and 3 in paeds is 'listen to parents'; lived experience is a very important early signal. New health problems may go under the health system radar for a long time because they sit outside usual disease frameworks and the health system is v busy with acute illness.
3. I find that understanding the immunopathology of an infectious disease is v valuable to get a sense of what type of problems may occur. Early evidence about immune and microvascular pathology in Covid rang some big alarm bells for me wrt potential for hidden harms to children.