Read on Twitter
Can someone help me understand one aspect of the controversy over the role of T-cells?
I know it is possible for a cross-reactive T-cell immune response to be unhelpful (e.g., "original antigenic sin").
How common is this, though?
I know it is possible for a cross-reactive T-cell immune response to be unhelpful (e.g., "original antigenic sin").
How common is this, though?
Is the prior probability greater that a cross-reactive T-cell immune response would be helpful or harmful?
This is important because to evaluate any evidence one has to have a sense of what the prior probability of one's hypothesis is.
To illustrate what I am getting at:
This is important because to evaluate any evidence one has to have a sense of what the prior probability of one's hypothesis is.
To illustrate what I am getting at:
Suppose I knew @shakira was scheduled to be in the UK for a concert. If I am at a restaurant in TX and, to my delight, it appears I am seeing her from afar--it would be rational to resist concluding it was her. I would want more evidence, as prior probability it's her is low.
In contrast, suppose I was scheduled to meet Shakira for dinner at the same restaurant. In that case, the *same evidence*--thinking I had seen her from afar--would be rationally sufficient to conclude it was her, as prior prob it is her is now higher.
What I am trying to figure out is whether appearing to find a beneficial t-cell mediated immune response is like appearing to see someone in TX whom you had reason to believe would be in the UK. Or more like seeing someone you at a restaurant you were expecting to see.
Here, it seems there is reasonable evidence that t-cell mediated immune responses are helpful.
For ex, if its observations generalize, the study discussed in this paper seems especially compelling to my lay eyes. https://news.ki.se/immunity-to-covid-19-is-probably-higher-than-tests-have-shown
For ex, if its observations generalize, the study discussed in this paper seems especially compelling to my lay eyes. https://news.ki.se/immunity-to-covid-19-is-probably-higher-than-tests-have-shown
But my point is not to debate the evidence but to try to understand how to contextualize it.
What is the prior probability of finding what the Karolinska paper suggests? How unexpected is this result? Should we be holding out for a lot more evidence?
What is the prior probability of finding what the Karolinska paper suggests? How unexpected is this result? Should we be holding out for a lot more evidence?
If finding helpful t-cell cross-reactivity is like thinking you have seen Shakira in TX when she was supposed to be in the UK, then I get the skepticism. But if instead, this is to be expect, then it is hard to understand the skepticism.
Notably, we do not seem to be holding speculative sequelae to the same level of proof we are demanding of t-cells. Or any number of other topics.
Is this just arbitrariness? Or is the prior probability of a beneficial cross-reactive t-cell immune response really that low?
Is this just arbitrariness? Or is the prior probability of a beneficial cross-reactive t-cell immune response really that low?
