曾光称 80%-90% 的人群自然感染后已获得天然免疫，中国的免疫屏障已基本建立，如何看待这一说法？

奋斗的小鸟

曾光表示，“据世界卫生组织公布，最近一周全球日均死亡人数将近1万。站在全球防疫的角度来看，这则声明更多是持比较慎重的态度，也符合中国实际，是可取的，并且是可以接受的。”
曾光表示，“结合中国自身实际，目前80%～90%的人群自然感染后已获得天然免疫，加之国内疫苗接种率已达到90%以上的水平，中国的免疫屏障已经基本建立。虽然从短期来看，疫情形势是安全的，暴风骤雨已经过去，但从中远期来看，还存在很多变量。”
曾光进一步解释，一方面，我国仍然面临着XBB、BQ.1及其亚分支境外输入的风险，尚未接种疫苗的老年人也依旧面临着感染风险；另一方面，此次新冠疫情全面放开之后，不论是医疗救治系统还是公共卫生系统，都需要总结经验。因此，中国要做出最终决策，除了要考虑疾病流行状态、发病率和死亡率情况，还要综合考虑到经济发展、社会安定以及国际交流等需要。

原文地址：https://www.zhihu.com/question/581655771

大力水手

北美票房至今没有恢复到2019年118亿的水平，甚至远远不如2014年100亿美元的水平……而只有可怜的七十三亿美元。
这个数字甚至不如二十年前。
“2001年北美票房整体表现相当不错，总收入高达81亿4千万美元，比2000年增长了百分之九。 ”
美国放开快要有两年了，请问他正常了么？
如果没有二次感染，三次感染，四五六七次感染，你猜好莱坞会倒退回2000年么？
这二十年咱们先不论美国人民的人均gdp三万美元变五万美元，就说美元本身贬值了多少。
但凡社会能够恢复八成正常，好莱坞的数据也不会这么难看。
曾光在这里大谈免疫屏障，请问，美国的免疫屏障建立了么？
免疫屏障？不存在的。

长长的路

现代版马奇诺防线?
冷知识：
最早提出群体免疫的英国，
目前还在经受疫情折磨。

虽然我不喜欢英国的论调，
但是英国用三年的时间证明了——
群体免疫就是扯淡。
都是人类，身体素质上的差距不会大到白人不能够免疫的病毒搁我们身上就免疫了。
病毒是最唯物的，
它
不听政治口号，
不听专家研判，
不考虑经济发展，
不在乎财政负担。
它只会传播、变异，然后致病或者杀死感染者，
对于病毒来说，
人类能做到的就是尽可能的远离传染源，
做好防护，能不得就不得。

检验医师

自然免疫，或者说群体免疫对于快速变异的新冠病毒来说，早就被证实是无效的方式了，这不管是理论上还是临床实践都证明了无效。
目前学界比较一致的看法是，随着病毒的变异，一年可能会有几次批次的感染情况出现，大家普遍认为每年会有2到3批的感染高峰。


从邻国日本的数据来看，22年是有3个明显的峰值的。当然，曹云龙老师最悲观的预计是每年可能会有4批。
最后，还是不得不佩服专家们的讲话艺术真的是6。

虽然从短期来看，疫情形势是安全的，暴风骤雨已经过去，但从中远期来看，还存在很多变量。

那么，短期是多长呢？
短期，时间相对较短，但短期又不是一个绝对的时间概念。所以查了下辞海，看看短期的应用。


1到3天算短期，3个星期也算，不超过1年的都算是短期。
也就是说，这话保真，保准，但不保时效。反正后边出问题了，都也能元的回来对吧，说的短期，只要出问题了，都是短期的问题，没毛病。
目前国内的情况是，BF.7和BA.5.2是真的传不动了，但后续的毒株，以及我一直担心的国内会不会产生新的变异毒株，都不知道是什么情况呢。

大力水手

谢邀。
曾老师说得很正确，免疫屏障已经基本建立了。
所以下面就顺理成章地进入日常维护阶段了。

那么……这道坚不可摧的免疫马奇诺防线，到底需要怎么好好维护呢？
其实很简单，群体免疫界的领头羊大英帝国，早已帮各位探好路了。

请品鉴牛津大学理论流行病学教授Sunetra Gupta老师的精辟总结：




金句摘选：“maintenance of herd immunity through constant reinfection”.

所以情况就是这么个情况：
在座各位，你们准备好了吗？

最后，请容许我——一个仍然身处免疫洼地无边苦海中载浮载沉的猥琐钉子户——向已经飞升免疫世界之巅的各位勇士致以最崇高的敬意。

————2023年2月2日第一次更新————

评论区有人说咱划重点不划整句，是断章取义。


那么下面就把全文贴过来吧，各位有空不妨读一读全文，
看看上面划重点的操作是不是断章取义：

When the spread of a new pathogen causes severe disease and death in any sector of the population, many decisions have to be made on the basis of very little information. Many speculated that Covid-19 would share a similar fate to Sars, which was virtually eradicated, but it has stubbornly resisted all attempts at elimination and instead more closely followed the expected behaviour of the other seasonal coronaviruses, moving from an epidemic phase into an endemic state with an appropriate reduction in mortality.

With the omicron variant, we know that the fatality rate will be dramatically lower whether or not it has diminished in virulence, because most of what we are seeing is re-infections or vaccine breakthroughs.

This strongly endorses the immediate lifting of restrictions given their devastating consequences, and focusing policy instead on the vulnerable. The low risk of infection among the vulnerable arises from the maintenance of herd immunity through constant reinfection; any measure that interferes with this actually increases their risk.

Self-isolation is a case in point. It may slow the spread of the virus but to what end? Meanwhile, such a requirement causes immense disruption to the normal functioning of society and our ability to provide healthcare and education to those in need.

In order to move fully into “living with the virus”, it is essential to recognise that trying to limit its spread is not only extremely difficult but also undesirable if we are aiming for the sort of relationship we have established with other endemic coronaviruses.

Acknowledging that any attempt to limit the spread of infection is actually retrograde to society is a difficult step to take, and easily lends itself to being characterised as a “let-it-rip” strategy.  Yet the implementation of non-pharmaceutical measures such as self-isolation can actually cause more damage to the vulnerable, both by preventing the build-up of herd immunity and because they may be incompletely protected while the virus nonetheless still spreads and herd immunity inevitably accumulates (the “let-it-drip” scenario).

The option of living with the virus, without submitting to the endless cycle of testing and self-isolation, has been tried and tested with the other seasonal coronaviruses and the good news is it seems to work. The alternative is not only pointless but ultimately unworkable within a society that seeks to look after its children, the elderly, the sick and the poor, and would prefer to prevent a widening of the gulf between those who can afford the luxury of self-isolation and those who simply cannot.

It is vital, in any national conversation going forward, to recognise that the omicron wave has been milder not because of its inherent properties but because it has arrived in a landscape where most people have already been naturally exposed to or vaccinated against Covid, so that the vulnerable among them already have immunity against severe disease and death.

Some have suggested that omicron gave us a lucky break. This is mistaken. While some very elegant studies have shown that this variant has some clear functional differences from its antecedents, there is no reason to believe it is intrinsically less virulent or more transmissible. It is a myth that all viruses evolve in this direction.

This means that we did not need to wait for omicron to happen before lifting the restrictions that have caused so much damage to so many. The Prime Minister today announced that Plan B measures, including mask wearing, will end. But he should go further and address Plan A measures, such as self-isolation.

原文传送门：
Why it's time to end Covid self-isolation

继续前进

我希望他说的是对的，但我不相信他说的真是对的。
毕竟，新冠病毒会反复感染，像美国日本等一波一波的疫情高峰，带走一波一波的人头，难道是假新闻吗？