Sorry mate, the insanity is ignoring the science.
Infection and reinfection clearly lower the risk, according to WHO, and I'll believe them rather than some ignorant comment posted by an amateur on the internet:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-repeat-covid-infections-what-we-know-so-far/
Yes, one case negates the science. Duh. You've completely lost the plot - fear does strange things.
Now, that's really funny. First off you mention lies, then come out with the whopper that I ever suggested lifelong immunity.
Well played!
He's 100% happy about it and doesn't expect the entire world to mask up for his sake.
Why are you so scared of this virus?
Point proven - nobody cares.
They should listen to you, amirite?
Just false.
Does not recognise humour, either.
1) Infection
is infection. It is not a thing that lowers the risk of infection. It leaves people with some immunity, but
reinfection, which is what he was talking about, is the best proof that the protection it offers is very limited.
It is nothing new that he refers to alleged science that he thinks says what he wishes it says.
It is not surprising that The Atheist doesn't provide us with the title and headline of the article he links to:
How Risky Are Repeat COVID Infections? What We Know So Far - Four years into the pandemic, many people have had COVID more than once - but the health consequences of repeat infections are not clearThis is what The Atheist summarizes as:
"It's now abundantly clear that reinfections lower the risk of both catching covid and getting sick from it."
It is
abundantly clear that The Atheist sees what he wants to see and not what is actually there. Nothing but bias and wishful thinking.
2) One case does not negate the science, but it sure as hell does make it clear that when The Atheist claims that something is
"abundantly clear," it probably isn't. That
"many people have had COVID more than once" stresses the fact.
3) As for never mentioning life-long immunity, I didn't write that The Atheist had claimed that (re)infections gave people life-long immunity, but the example of a guy who has been infected seven times (and that was more than a year ago!) makes it abundantly clear that something is wrong with The Atheist's optimistic claim.
But let us ask him about what his claim is: For how many days, weeks, months do
"reinfections lower the risk of both catching covid and getting sick from it"? In Ed Sheeran's case, we are talking about seven C19 infections in sixteen months. It doesn't take a statistician to calculate that this would be less than three months on average between infections. Let me also point out that Ed Sheeran was 30 when he got infected the first time and apparently in good health. I don't know if he still is.
4) Scared of the virus? No, not really. I stay away from places where I expect it to be rampant, and I mask up in indoor places that I can't avoid when the level of contagion is high. The Atheist's anecdote about his son's attitude to the pandemic is evidence of nothing, but for some reason he seems to think that we should believe him.
5) I write that almost nobody in Copenhagen masks up, for some reason The Atheist attempts to prove that
"nobody (!) cares." He obviously can't tell the difference between reality and his own hyperbole.
6) It is a fact that
"one thousand people in New Zealand have died from Covid-19 in the last 12 months" (or to be exact: 996). And that isn't counting the ones that have died of heart attacks and other sequelae.
Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 deaths in New Zealand in the last 12 months (Our World in Data)
7) As for jokes, there can be nothing more ridiculous than one of The Atheist's typical posts.
That he always cherry-picks and leaves out major parts of the argumentation from posts he responds to is part of the joke, so you should always go back and read the whole thing. Otherwise, you'll miss out on a lot and think that he may have made an actual point.