I think a Q&A format might work better than myth/fact, because the “myths” aren’t common myths or necessarily false and the “facts” aren’t simple facts. One example: If “prevent” is interpreted as...
I think a Q&A format might work better than myth/fact, because the “myths” aren’t common myths or necessarily false and the “facts” aren’t simple facts.
One example:
Breakthrough cases prove that the vaccine doesn’t prevent catching COVID-19.
If “prevent” is interpreted as “makes infection impossible” it’s actually true. Vaccines don’t make us completely safe, they lower the risk. Sometimes it makes sense to use other risk reduction methods (like masks and tests) to lower the risks even more.
Also I’m wondering who the audience is supposed to be? Why would someone trust this random web page? You don’t say who you are or why anyone should trust you. We aren’t authorities so linking to sources is essential.
I agree with everything skybrian said. If I stumbled across this blog post, I would give it essentially zero credence. From the rest of your blog, it seems like you're a software engineer, not...
I agree with everything skybrian said. If I stumbled across this blog post, I would give it essentially zero credence. From the rest of your blog, it seems like you're a software engineer, not someone who works in healthcare -- so why should I trust you specifically? You should ameliorate your trust problem by providing sources (eg, myth // fact // sources). (Also, I would agree that "myth" and "fact" are loaded words; may I suggest "claim" and "reply" instead?)
The second issue, as skybrian also pointed out, is that it's unclear whom you're writing for. A COVID skeptic, for example, might dismiss virtually everything you've written. If you're trying to convince these people, it would be more helpful to rely on analogies and examples. If you're just writing this blog post for yourself (eg, as a list of rebuttals to claims you've heard), you should probably just be upfront about it. ("Here are a list of dubious COVID-19 claims I've heard before. As a reminder to myself, I've assembled a list of rebuttals to these claims.")
But if you're interested in writing for someone else, I would probably refocus this post. For example, there are some truly bizarre claims in there that probably warrant more discussion ("Taking a hot bath can stop COVID-19", "Everyone with COVID-19 dies", Bill Gates's microchips). Your blog post could instead focus on the origin of these myths moreso than debunking them.
Uh? Natural (post infection) immunity should work. My first DDG result point to this reporting from NIH of a January 2021 Science article describing immunity up to eight month after infection...
MYTH: I already had COVID-19, therefore I don’t need the vaccine; I’m immune.
FACT: Even after recovering from COVID-19, it remains inside your body and can resurface. Studies have been unclear how long immunity lasts after having COVID-19—most experts believe anywhere from 90 days to six months, though it could be longer. After three to six months or so, the natural immunity begins to wane and the risk of reinfection returns
Uh?
Natural (post infection) immunity should work.
My first DDG result point to this reporting from NIH of a January 2021 Science article describing immunity up to eight month after infection (probably eight because its a January article - no data here the author lives I suspect).
In either case (infection or vaccine), the immune system is developing some memory cells that reactivates in case of subsequent infection to produce antibodies.
It may be that in the case of a natural infection the immune system has picked up something else than the spike protein as a target, but I doubt that the efficacy of those alternative targets are massively different.
"natural immunity begins to wane"
What this "natural immunity" means?
I assume he's referring to the lifespan of antibodies, but those are not the only component of the immune system.
Could be nice if you included your sources. You can find more myths ideas from: COVID Vaccine Myths, Questions, and Rumors with Rhonda Patrick and Roger Seheult For example: Risk of myocarditis...
I think a Q&A format might work better than myth/fact, because the “myths” aren’t common myths or necessarily false and the “facts” aren’t simple facts.
One example:
If “prevent” is interpreted as “makes infection impossible” it’s actually true. Vaccines don’t make us completely safe, they lower the risk. Sometimes it makes sense to use other risk reduction methods (like masks and tests) to lower the risks even more.
Also I’m wondering who the audience is supposed to be? Why would someone trust this random web page? You don’t say who you are or why anyone should trust you. We aren’t authorities so linking to sources is essential.
I agree with everything skybrian said. If I stumbled across this blog post, I would give it essentially zero credence. From the rest of your blog, it seems like you're a software engineer, not someone who works in healthcare -- so why should I trust you specifically? You should ameliorate your trust problem by providing sources (eg, myth // fact // sources). (Also, I would agree that "myth" and "fact" are loaded words; may I suggest "claim" and "reply" instead?)
The second issue, as skybrian also pointed out, is that it's unclear whom you're writing for. A COVID skeptic, for example, might dismiss virtually everything you've written. If you're trying to convince these people, it would be more helpful to rely on analogies and examples. If you're just writing this blog post for yourself (eg, as a list of rebuttals to claims you've heard), you should probably just be upfront about it. ("Here are a list of dubious COVID-19 claims I've heard before. As a reminder to myself, I've assembled a list of rebuttals to these claims.")
But if you're interested in writing for someone else, I would probably refocus this post. For example, there are some truly bizarre claims in there that probably warrant more discussion ("Taking a hot bath can stop COVID-19", "Everyone with COVID-19 dies", Bill Gates's microchips). Your blog post could instead focus on the origin of these myths moreso than debunking them.
Uh?
Natural (post infection) immunity should work.
My first DDG result point to this reporting from NIH of a January 2021 Science article describing immunity up to eight month after infection (probably eight because its a January article - no data here the author lives I suspect).
In either case (infection or vaccine), the immune system is developing some memory cells that reactivates in case of subsequent infection to produce antibodies.
It may be that in the case of a natural infection the immune system has picked up something else than the spike protein as a target, but I doubt that the efficacy of those alternative targets are massively different.
What this "natural immunity" means?
I assume he's referring to the lifespan of antibodies, but those are not the only component of the immune system.
Wait, what does this mean? To my knowledge, COVID doesn't linger inside your body to resurface later like some viruses (chickenpox) do.
Where did you find those sources? I don't see them anywhere in the linked page.
Could be nice if you included your sources.
You can find more myths ideas from: COVID Vaccine Myths, Questions, and Rumors with Rhonda Patrick and Roger Seheult
For example: