> while I agree with your general advice about sources, I don't find your "apparently" to be apparent at all.
"Apparently" was used in the sense "I haven't seen and verified the sources myself" (i.e. the specific scientific material that supports the conclusion of an expert) but at least I took the effort to get the claim about that conclusion from a recognized expert directly." That is, I can't give you the ultimate source that the said expert used for that conclusion, but according to my understanding from reading a transcript of his podcast he concluded that and I have chosen to believe him. Experts spend their whole life to achieve expertise. There are a lot of "preprints" and even fast-approved published scientific papers floating around, which eventually (even extremely fast) are recognized to be flawed by the experts, but only after the false claims are repeated across the media. In such a situation, unless we are the experts ourselves, and unless we have infinite time available, our best bet is to trust the experts who are less prone to present or accept false claims. I consider Christian Drosten one of these.
Being curious, I do check some source scientific works myself, I'm just admitting that for that particular claim I haven't checked the sources myself but decided to trust Drosten. I also claim that I at least spent enough energy to read the exact transcript of his talk and avoided to read "journalistic interpretations" -- the expert's statements are very often totally deformed by retelling. If that's not enough for you and you believe that you can catch him in an error, I'd really like to know why you even believe to be able to achieve that. And if you believe that I'm claiming something he hasn't said, you can check the transcripts of his last two podcasts yourself and write here if I made an error, I'll be happy to learn more.
At some level every one of us has to trust some experts, the question is just if we can also recognize these who just claim some expertise but are actually promoting false claims. I believe that Ioannidis, for example, is an example of such, and I also see that other experts agree.
For "as close to the experts as possible" sources I also recommend everything from https://www.microbe.tv They also admit that they do make errors sometimes, because they didn't recognize early enough how serious this virus is going to affect everybody. But getting the coverage from the experts directly allows one to remain much saner than when reading media who regularly completely distort what experts actually say. And even when media accurately quote some single paper, media often falsely reflect what the whole body of knowledge actually is, as in xkcd "Significant" comics.
You should look for the better source for your claims than some podcasts.
It is already estblished that those who had COVID develop immunity for it, just not entirely clear how long lasting it is. But given its similarity to the original SARS it should last quite a long time.
> It is already estblished that those who had COVID develop immunity for it
Who claimed something opposite to that and where? I don't understand why you write that at all.
I'm arguing that getting the coverage directly from the experts who do reflect the knowledge of the whole fields (and who don't promote some narrow agenda like Ioannidis) is provably better than getting it from the politicians or the press. The goal is always to recoginize these who introduce a bias which distorts the truth.
What are your "better" sources (as in, more expert and less biased) that cover this pandemics?
"Apparently" was used in the sense "I haven't seen and verified the sources myself" (i.e. the specific scientific material that supports the conclusion of an expert) but at least I took the effort to get the claim about that conclusion from a recognized expert directly." That is, I can't give you the ultimate source that the said expert used for that conclusion, but according to my understanding from reading a transcript of his podcast he concluded that and I have chosen to believe him. Experts spend their whole life to achieve expertise. There are a lot of "preprints" and even fast-approved published scientific papers floating around, which eventually (even extremely fast) are recognized to be flawed by the experts, but only after the false claims are repeated across the media. In such a situation, unless we are the experts ourselves, and unless we have infinite time available, our best bet is to trust the experts who are less prone to present or accept false claims. I consider Christian Drosten one of these.
Being curious, I do check some source scientific works myself, I'm just admitting that for that particular claim I haven't checked the sources myself but decided to trust Drosten. I also claim that I at least spent enough energy to read the exact transcript of his talk and avoided to read "journalistic interpretations" -- the expert's statements are very often totally deformed by retelling. If that's not enough for you and you believe that you can catch him in an error, I'd really like to know why you even believe to be able to achieve that. And if you believe that I'm claiming something he hasn't said, you can check the transcripts of his last two podcasts yourself and write here if I made an error, I'll be happy to learn more.
At some level every one of us has to trust some experts, the question is just if we can also recognize these who just claim some expertise but are actually promoting false claims. I believe that Ioannidis, for example, is an example of such, and I also see that other experts agree.
For "as close to the experts as possible" sources I also recommend everything from https://www.microbe.tv They also admit that they do make errors sometimes, because they didn't recognize early enough how serious this virus is going to affect everybody. But getting the coverage from the experts directly allows one to remain much saner than when reading media who regularly completely distort what experts actually say. And even when media accurately quote some single paper, media often falsely reflect what the whole body of knowledge actually is, as in xkcd "Significant" comics.