no, you can't get "reinfected" by a virus. this is basic science. 

a virus is a protein, an enzyme, which means it's a string of amino acids with a bunch of open electrons hanging off of it. the protein has a certain chemistry to it, and that chemistry creates a geometry. i did projects on viruses in grades 12 and 13 bio (i took bio 101 & 102 at carleton, but it didn't touch on this topic), but, like so many other things, this is actually fundamentally a math problem.

so, a virus is a protein with a specific geometry to it. what it does is it floats through your tissue like a spaceship and latch on to cells like a lander. once it's connected itself to the cell, it releases genetic material into it through the cell membrane (i almost said cell wall. it has been a while.). this genetic material then takes control of the nucleus of the cell, and turns the cell into a virus producing factory. once your cell is literally full of copies of the virus, it explodes like the obese man in se7ven, thereby releasing thousands of more copies of the virus, and then it all starts over again - thousands of times over. a powerful virus like ebola will turn you into mush, as your billions of cells explode one at a time.

the virus itself has no purpose other than to destroy.

how do you defeat that? what your immune system is going to do is produce something called antibodies that rely on finding the right chemical combination to create the right geometry to disassemble the virus in the intercellular spaces. and, in fact, it works by trial and error. but, once it gets the right geometry, it remembers it. forever.

forever.

so, why do you need flu shots, then? i guess some people deduce that you "lose immunity", but that is not true. what happens is that the virus changes it's geometry enough that your body no longer recognizes it, and needs to produce new antibodies for it.

so, nobody is getting "reinfected" with coronavirus. what is happening, then?

1) it might be that testing was incomplete and they weren't cured in the first place.

2) the virus might be evolving very quickly; these people would have been infected by two different coronaviruses, rather than the same one.

british press: 60% of britons will need to be infected to allow for herd immunity? this is irresponsible!

british scientists: 70% of british people will become infected. deal with it.

people just don't listen to science. they insist on magical thinking. it's distressing.

it looks like i spoke too soon, and the british tories are going to overreact like everybody else. but, i'll post my graphic anyways. soon.

i actually agree with the british tories. that's pretty rare....

the error that's being made in the underlying discussion around this is that we have a choice, and that choosing herd immunity is irresponsible when they could be taking more proactive measures to stop the spread of the disease. but, the empirical evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is, in fact, absolutely nothing at all that can be done to stop the spread of this disease.

i mean, if you can figure out how to stop this, then you'll have figured out how to stop the flu and the common cold, as well. i applaud you on your upcoming nobel prize. congratulations to you.

that boris johnson of all people is getting this right is no doubt an accident of history; the truth is probably closer to the reality that he's just lazy, and this is the easiest possible choice. but, sometimes fate can be cruel - and in this scenario, the easiest choice is the most correct one. 

i need to repeat the importance of getting it into the heads of old people that this virus might kill them. and, it's important to keep gathering data, even if there's not much of an effort to contain. but, outside of those very targeted actions, attempting to stop the spread of this could actually backfire, if it just results in slowing down the rate of natural immunity and allows for carriers to linger on for months to come.

i'm going to post a slightly different graph. just let me get my laptop back up, first.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/herd-immunity-will-the-uks-coronavirus-strategy-work

one of the best things you can do for your kids right now is exposing them to this, so they can beat it young.

i mean, we could carry out mass immunizations once we get a vaccine. but, if the mortality rate is less than 1%, it seems unnecessary.

so, i know this seems counter-intuitive and contrary to all the fear the media is pushing down, but one of the best public health measures we can take, long term, is actually to spread this around as much as possible in the younger population.

if you avoid this now, and it happens again, it could kill you when you're older; if you catch it now, you're immune, if it does.

that's why i'm hoping i do catch it.

the thing we want to avoid, specifically, is situations where older people are in contact with younger people.

we actually probably want younger people to build immunity, in case this happens again when they're older.

does it make sense to close schools?

you're probably worried about the kids. but, a large percentage of teachers and profs are older people.

i'm going to label that as a justified reaction.

thank you for making the point that the focus should be on buying gear, not on "flattening the curve".

single payer health care does have a fatal flaw - it can put the system at the whim of fiscally conservative governments, who can devastate it in the form of budget cuts. if you want this system to work, you have to fund it, and the onset of neo-liberalism has led to massive cuts in much of the developed world. i don't know exactly what silvio berlusconi or his successors did to the italian health care system, but i doubt it was beneficial. 

it seems like they got swamped. i'm not denying that, and it could happen anywhere.

but, it's also exposing the consequences of a lack of funding, and what happens when you slash health care to balance budgets.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-hospital-bed-shortages-amid-covid-19-expose-the-deadly-cost-of-a-lack/

yeah. i know.

the only thing to fear, is fear itself.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid19-travel-bans-1.5495919

science is an authority, and i will listen to science.

but, the only authority that the state has over me is the threat of violence.

it follows that statist dictates that are not backed by science are invalid and should be ignored.

this puny, weakling virus will be annihilated by my superior immune system!

ahahahahaha!

i'm an anarchist. you're probably not. but, you need to know when to step away from your need to control things, and this is one of those situations.

the science does not support bans on travel, or bans on large gatherings, right now. i will not be heeding these restrictions, myself - and i fully expect to get this virus, and defeat it. i don't want to cower in fear of one another, i want to take this on headfirst, and develop the antibodies. bring it on! 

i hope that i can lead by example.

but, i will strenuously avoid old people, and i will state this clearly - if you are in an at-risk category, you need to take responsibility for your own safety, which means staying inside, even if you're not sick. if you're going to ban anything, it should be the movement of retired people. stay home, granny.

i know you want to help, and that's natural, but if you want to help then you should follow the science.

the only worthwhile thing you can do is avoid old people.

this is completely, utterly irrational.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-travel-halted-covid-19-1.5496537

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/12/21176669/travel-ban-trump-coronavirus-china-italy-europe

Canada's Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam confirmed that Canada is now advising against all international travel to limit the spread of the virus. She warned that travellers could be subject to another country's travel or quarantine restrictions, and if they become sick, they could find themselves in a health care system inferior to Canada's system.

this is admittedly worth considering carefully; that's a good point, and something to think about.

i am opposed to any bans on international travel coming in and out of canada. this is the first overreaction i've seen from this government, and you have to wonder if it's a function of his wife getting sick.

there is simply no reason to think that taking a flight to a different country is any more dangerous than going to the grocery store around the corner. i know you want to imagine that there is, but there isn't.

it's circulating, and you're going to need to learn to deal with it. you can't control this. stop pretending you can....

in the place of a pointless travel ban, i would support a statement by the federal government that at risk groups - old people especially - avoid human interaction as much as possible until the virus runs it's course. 

if you're over 60, stay inside; if you're under 60, avoid people over 60, but otherwise carry on your day-to-day lives.

so, why are they doing this? they're feeding into public perception for the need for Strong Leadership and State Control. it's a pr thing. and, this is dangerous.

i wonder if the white house is ultimately behind this, though. we can't be letting those idiots make bad decisions and force them into canada. we're a sovereign country. 

we need to continue to follow the science, and not give into the panic. this is a step backwards, and i'd call for it's reversal.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-covid-19-1.5496367

you guys ever read the stand?

that was a perplexing night in detroit.

the show was good. but, people are...confused. and don't want to listen.