Each Covid-19 wave wrecks your health. Here's what you can do
Hospitalisations and deaths from the virus are climbing as the ninth wave of Covid-19 surges across Aotearoa.
This nonscientific story is still circulating; that SARS-CoV-2 causes "accumulative" damage and does not contribute to immunity. Topped up by "not seasonal".
The science contribution is by @helenp-h.bsky.social and Michael Baker
www.rnz.co.nz/life/w...
1/10
10.03.2026 14:57
👍 13
🔁 7
💬 3
📌 0
This again emphasises that humans are part of their environment and have bidirectional interactions, which shape and maintain our pathogen-specific immune defences. If we isolate ourselves too much, we are at higher long-term risk of disease upon infection.
7/7
10.03.2026 23:43
👍 2
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
Infected individuals had indeed lower pre-infection anti-FHA IgG and IgA concentrations than matched uninfected individuals.
I.e. if not infected for too long: eventual infection has a higher risk to cause disease.
6/7
10.03.2026 23:43
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
This is supported by children aged 6-12 years, who received a booster vaccination at 4 years, showed lowest anti-Ptx IgG concentrations after the period of reduced circulation. Vaccine protects against infection 3-5 years; then immunity is boosted by regulator infections.
5/7
10.03.2026 23:43
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Weighted incidence over two years was 6.3% (95% CI: 4.4-8.2) in the Dutch population, and 35% (95% CI: 26.2-44.6) in 6-18y-olds.
I.e. espexially children who have not built up sufficient immunity and lack of exposure increases susceptibility.
4/7
10.03.2026 23:43
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
The authors analyzed serum from 418 participants (2–87 years) at five timepoints (November 2022-October 2024) from a nationwide prospective serosurveillance study.
3/7
10.03.2026 23:43
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
After relative absence of Bordetella pertussis during the COVID-19 pandemic, notifications in the Netherlands were increased from May 2023 till September 2024.
2/7
10.03.2026 23:42
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Forget SkinTok: the real science of skincare and why it matters for your health
Nature - Skip the complicated regimens and expensive products seen on social media. The science of skin is deep but the recommendations are simple.
Forget SkinTok: the real science of skincare and why it matters for your health
Skip the complicated regimens and expensive products seen on social media. The science of skin is deep but the recommendations are simple.
10.03.2026 20:18
👍 5
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
Preprints.org - The Multidisciplinary Preprint Platform
Preprints.org is a multidisciplinary platform providing a preprinting service dedicated to making early research permanently available and citable.
Preprint server removes study attributing increased infant mortality to vaccines
The paper, posted at Preprints.org last December, was written by Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker of Children’s Health Defense.
retractionwatch.com/...
10.03.2026 19:41
👍 4
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
It is unsettling to watch the United States drift toward greater danger while much of the country barely reacts. Warnings are everywhere, yet national institutions respond with little more than a murmur. What looks calm may simply be people growing used to the risk.
1/4
10.03.2026 11:52
👍 17
🔁 5
💬 2
📌 0
The US fighting a religious war, for their religion? The minister for "war" has religious beliefs for war, and uses it as an excuse to go to war.
10.03.2026 17:57
👍 2
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
Helping the iranian people, callling them to overthrow their government (while staying inside), "help is comming", well, forget about all that.
Who would have thought?
10.03.2026 17:51
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
In 2026, after this paper has been highlighted and explained at nausea, you can of course bring it up again to claim "cumulative damage". But that would be a bit silly.
For those at the back.
Let´s do this one once more. A much (purposely) misinterpreted paper.
(from Twitter, Jan 2023)
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 5
🔁 4
💬 2
📌 0
Gezondheidsraad past adviesleeftijd voor coronaprik aan van 60+ naar 70+
De Gezondheidsraad adviseert om de coronaprik komend en volgend najaar aan te bieden aan zeventigplussers en medische risicogroepen. Eerder gold dat advies ook voor zestigplussers.
Gezondheidsraad past adviesleeftijd voor coronaprik aan van 60+ naar 70+
De Gezondheidsraad adviseert om de coronaprik komend en volgend najaar aan te bieden aan zeventigplussers en medische risicogroepen. Eerder gold dat advies ook voor 60+.
www.nu.nl/coronaviru...
1/3
10.03.2026 12:50
👍 6
🔁 5
💬 2
📌 0
As with most infections;
- the acute risk of disease is lower for reinfection than 1st infection.
- those infected, after the acute phase, seem less in need of hospitalisation in time compared with 1st infection.
This is how it generally works.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 2
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
All this seems at odds with the interpretation that multiple infections cause one to be more vulnerable (a first infection can, and during the acute phase this is certainly possible, for all infections). It is in agreement with the many studies as in the metaanalysis and later.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
But, the risks associated with reinfection seem more likely to be acute, compared to first infection. This can also be seen in the supplementary tables. The excess burden from reinfection starts out higher than the no-reinfection burden, but then drops.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
The risk is highest shortly after infection. Which makes sense: yet there is an increase risk op complications for a longer time: especially in cohorts like used here.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
What this article shows is that the health risks arising from reinfections are not zero. That is important information, but it does not show that another SARS-COV-2 infection is worse than the previous one.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
In graphics, it looks like this
Source and discussion: x.com/MichaelSFuhr...
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
This you can see from supplemental figure 2, which is applicable to figures 1-4.
Situation 1 - infected on day 1 assessed days 90-180
Compared to situation 2 - infected on day 1, re-infected in days 90-180.
The comparison done:
1 - days 90-180
2 - days +1 after reinfection
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
Independent of what people interpret, and not included in the preprint, the authors (had to) make it very clear that their study should not and cannot be used to compare the risk of reinfection with that of a first infection.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
In addition, the authors equate hospitalisation with COVID-19 infection. But that is not so clear. In the setting used, the infection could be the result of the hospitalisation, thereby overstating the infection effect. IHR ~10%! Or it could be this specific cohort.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
The hospital setting: If you have more C19 infections and all are diagnosed with a PCR test or antigen on your record, then you have more symptoms than someone going through the reinfection at home; anyway, PCR in the hospital = more chance to be/be included in the hospital.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
In addition, the cohort is old (60 years old), 90% male, very low vaccination status, and is also more vulnerable (much immunocompromised, although there is some correction).
Re-infections hit vulnerable people worse, so they are worse off than people who have not been re-infected.
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
This study predates Omicron (ended April 6, 2022, after 6 months follow-up), which bypasses more antibodies, and reinfections are tilted towards the more vulnerable.
A Delta breakthrough does not imply the same consequences or selection bias as an Omicron breakthrough
10.03.2026 15:34
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
