Boom... and just like that even my (and a few others) long shot theory is looking like it could turn out to be incredibly off the charts correct.
.
Yes. T cells and also"memory cells" are an underdiscussed part of the picture.
The reporting on antibodies - ie. who has them and does not and therefore who is immune and who is not- is wayyyyyy too simplistic.
As discussed, there is the issue of T-cells which may knock out the virus so fast that the body does not even gear up to produce a full blown colony of antibodies. But it would be a big mistake to think that that person is therefore highly vulnerable to covid. It's the opposite.
In addition to antibodies, there are T-cells but there are also memory cells. These are the cells that become wired and coded to recognize a virus and remember it and are all titted up and ready to go when and if it reappears, so that the immune system does not fuck around for weeks trying to find the formula needed. They are the loaded revolver in the dresser draw who remembers you and will recognize you if your sorry arse comes back. So what happens is the patient recovers from a virus and eventually the antibodies peter out and a low antibody level shows in the blood and many conclude that the patient is no longer protected against reinfection. NOPE. This is another instance where that cannot necessarily be concluded because the patient is not back to square one. They have memory cells that are coded to produce antibodies much faster and more efficiently than the first time around.
Further, and I discussed this wayy back along with the other factors, it appears (from studying the blood of fast responders) that many fast responders are able to knock out the covid virus with high levels of immunoglobulin G which is a common antibody which is also generated by other viruses such as influenza Type B.
Bottom line is one cannot necessarily conclude that people without a high covid antibody level in their blood are highly vulnerable. Some are, but many are not because their immune system uses other pathways to make the kill and that can be a good thing.
There is also an ongoing argument being made that if some people with covid become reinfected that we are all going to die because that proves that there is no immunity. NOPE. It just shows that some people may need another exposure to strengthen their immunity even more. We may get the flu a little bit each year but this just updates our immunity. Some people may say we are not protected if we still get the flu year after year. Really? Try infecting an aboriginal group that has been isolated and see what happens. The flu that may make you a little sick for a day or a few every year will wipe out their entire tribe. That's because you have basic immunity even though it needs to be updated. To my knowledge, almost all of the vaccine researchers are planning to introduce a vaccine that will require two shots spaced apart by a few weeks for all the reasons discussed above- programming the memory cells and giving some immunity so that you can give them an even large dose in the second shot. Out in nature, this is the equivalent of a person needing to be infected twice to get good immunity. It does not mean that they will not achieve immunity- although that may be true for a subset of people who are immunodeficient for the usual reasons- age, other illness etc.
Alright nuff of that. but yes. there are t cells and memory cell programming and all sorts of other factors beyond just "have you got antibodies or not." although that is a good discussion too but kind of well worn compared to the other factors.
yeah, boom.
