re: immunity -- https://www.theage.com.au/national/scientists-at-odds-after-study-finds-coronavirus-antibody-anomaly-20200410-p54iwm.html

>>>No scientist ever states that current findings are other than as best understanding of the moment. Those same scientists advocate for the use of our best understanding in creating government policies. Using the best information to guide choices yields the best results, probabilistically. When the best science is then characterized by certain news services in the manner you describe those news services are engaging in a blatant attempt to undercut the best science of the moment for purposes other than the general good.
>
>Yes, but the main underpinning of science is that "best understanding of the moment", also known as hypothesis, is strengthened by ... questioning and challenging. Not by declaring "settled science" that only bad players would question.
>
>Good scientists don't assign malign motives to dissenters unless there are real life consequences- e.g. anti-vax mentality causing avoidable epidemics and suffering.
>
>I suppose you might assert that questioning the covid-19 models caused suffering except that real life is not complying with models anywhere I know of, and turning credence for unreliable hypothesis into a moral test itself seems likely to cause harm.
>
>As an aside, some front-line clinicians now say that early/aggressive ventilations may be contributing to SARS-2 mortality. Whether true or not, this illustrates why even the most obvious principle such as ventilatory support for somebody struggling to breathe, must not be turned into a moral test.
>
>I believe that immunity and the value of a test demonstrating it, survived your earlier challenge and remains valid. I intend to take the test at first opportunity in the hope/expectation that I am immune, so no threat to myself or others. The same logic that protects vaccinated communities from measles, protects communities from SARS-2 if enough are immune by whatever means- whether by eventual vaccination or because infectivity is higher and severity not as sure as modelers' early assumptions. As for the models: when the Surgeon General and Birx say "we're now working with real data, not models" there's a certain code/jargon at use there. I don't expect models will be given the same automatic credence going forward- at least not without robust challenge.