The Herd, Vaccine and Natural Immunity Thread....

[jem]

You seem to assert as fact, a point with very limited data. That is very similar to how GWDoomer argues and it is very misleading.


A few people in a study or two lack antibodies 3 months after clearance but we have very limited data.

The data I have seen has indicated that the harder the virus hits the stronger your immune response.

However, if people don't have antibodies more than 3 months and there are not other mechanisms in play we should be seeing thousands of people getting Covid a 2nd time. (and it should be starting to happen right now. So we should soon know...)

So far reports of a 2nd infection are very rare.
And there may be other mechanisms operating to help people be resistant to Covid.

How can one be immune to a virus if your body does not remember it? What is the evidence the immune system system remembers a virus? You are correct, antibodies. Previously infected patients with Covid-19 have allegedly shown to have no antibodies after three months. In addition, there is evidence of patients getting reinfected with Covid-19.

How can there be “Herd immunity” if people can get reinfected again? That’s right, there is no “Herd immunity” with this virus.

If you can’t accept the above reasoning, give the word, and I’ll dig up the sources.

 

[jem]

1. Some Young People fight off the infection without even using antibodies.
As I have been saying... there can be other mechanism in play.


--

From June 19 MIT Technology review


Our Biggest questions about immunity to Covid 19

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/19/1004169/biggest-questions-about-immunity-to-covid-19/


We’re still not very sure how covid-19 immunity works. As we inch closer to a vaccine and pin our hopes on herd immunity to allow us to safely open up communities again, the uncertainties will only get more pressing. Here’s a look at some of the biggest questions we’re still trying to answer.

How much immunity are we talking about? When most people (i.e., the general public) talk about immunity, what they mean is protection from a disease. But for many infectious diseases, “immune” and “not immune” are more a gradient than a binary. Tulane University virologist Robert Garry points out that the flu vaccine, for instance, doesn’t give absolute protection against influenza, but rather is designed to prevent a significant infection and keep things “from falling off a cliff.”

When we talk about immunity against covid-19, we’re mostly referring to the production of antibodies by our body’s immune system. But this is also misleading. A preprint study uploaded this month, which measured antibody levels in patients in London, found that between 2% and 8.5% didn’t even develop detectable antibodies. Those in this group who survived infection (typically younger people) likely had to fight off infection through cell-mediated arms of the immune system—white blood cells and cytokines that directly engage and kill pathogens—rather than through antibodies that neutralize the virus.

How long does immunity to covid-19 last after infection? We really have no idea yet. There have been sporadic reports of some people in the world coming down with covid-19 twice, and so far it’s unclear why. It’s well documented that other coronavirus infections confer only temporary immunity, sometimes lasting no more than a few months. Covid-19 may follow the same pattern, but it’s too early to tell.

What factors affect immunity? As Sarah Fortune at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health points out, it’s already well known that immunity from an infectious disease is tied to the strength and durability of the immune response during infection. An infection that causes severe symptoms is likely to lead to a stronger immune response, which would also help encourage strong and longer-lasting immunity moving forward. On the flip side, a mild or asymptomatic case is likely to yield lower antibody levels, as was found in covid-19 patients in a new study published in Nature Medicine on Thursday.

In the study, researchers studied a small cohort of asymptomatic patients with covid-19 and found that they seemed to develop lower antibody levels. On the surface, this might suggest these people are not as immune to covid; but Fortune points out that you can’t draw those kinds of conclusions yet—it might be the case that those lower levels of antibodies will still protect you from getting sick, as a new paper in Nature suggests.

We’re still not totally clear how asymptomatic cases and symptomatic cases differ in terms of immunity, since the asymptomatic cases aren’t being actively tested and identified. Nor is there a universal definition for what qualifies as asymptomatic. Is it the total absence of symptoms? What about just moderate ones?

Other research has demonstrated that “those who have inflammation mount an immune response that’s more detectable and potentially more robust,” adds Charles Cairns, the dean of Drexel University College of Medicine. All of this growing evidence might underscore the importance of a cell-mediated immune response for fighting coronavirus.

What does this mean for developing a vaccine? At the risk of sounding like a broken record: we don’t know yet. As mentioned, we’re still not sure what kind of covid-19 immunity we will get from a vaccination: total, or just protection from the worst symptoms. Fortune says that for covid, we’re likely to get true protection, but we don’t know for sure—and it’s not something that we can just assess from antibody levels. It won’t be until phase III trials (which will directly measure the vaccine’s efficacy) that we'll have a better sense of what the relationship between antibody levels and immunity is, and what sort of immune response a vaccine needs to elicit to provide true protection.

If it turns out pre-exposure to covid-19 doesn’t guarantee permanent or strong immunity, nearly everyone would be recommended for vaccination. And clinical trials for studying the safety and efficacy of the vaccine would then need to include people from this previously infected population.

Article meta
Share

 

[Bugenhagen]

I guess some never did basic biology. Aquired vs Innate inmune system.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312820302912

 

[BeautifulStranger]

If you don’t think the virus and the narrative are being manipulated for the election by the MSM, can’t help ya.

It is counterproductive to look at this virus as a narrative. There are specific actions that were and are still necessary to prevent the spread of this dangerous and particularly infectious disease.

Trump’s mishandling of the virus certaintly provides the Left with strong talking points and we both know how the Democrats live for talking advantages of disasters that come about, including the ones they create themselves, such as Antifa’s violence and destruction of businesses and statues.

The leadership behind the Radical Left is effective at creating dissent and robust plans to help them garner ever more power. Radical Leftist leadership is smarter and more focused than Conservatives, making it seemingly inevitable they gain complete political control of the United States.

Hello Authoritarian Rule, will you be my friend?

Conservatives only chance is anticipating or dealing with events at face value and try to make the best decisions that most effectively deal with the situation at hand rather than being overly focused on political aspects. Besides, fairly often Conservatives get the political aspects wrong, with help from the media, of course.

Over time and a steady history of making good decisions and effective policy, voters will be able to recognize more easily who better represents their interests.

-Long term registered, now barely Trump supporting, Democrat speaking here.

 

[BeautifulStranger]

You seem to assert as fact, a point with very limited data. That is very similar to how GWDoomer argues and it is very misleading.


A few people in a study or two lack antibodies 3 months after clearance but we have very limited data.

The data I have seen has indicated that the harder the virus hits the stronger your immune response.

However, if people don't have antibodies more than 3 months and there are not other mechanisms in play we should be seeing thousands of people getting Covid a 2nd time. (and it should be starting to happen right now. So we should soon know...)

So far reports of a 2nd infection are very rare.
And there may be other mechanisms operating to help people be resistant to Covid.

When evidence from credible sources shows there is a dangerous aspect to a disease, would not best practices demand decisive action rather than, say, a wait and see attitude? Besides, the lockdown had potential benefits of limiting the spread of this disease for reasons previously stated in other posts.

 

[jem]

good question...
I like evidence too.

so think about this .

the under 30 group who is healthy dies about as much from this virus as the flu.
for instance in my area San Diego there are no deaths for people under 19 and 3 deaths under 30. And if you know people in hospitals these facts were apparent to everyone in health care within days. Old people with co morbidity... very deadly. Young people who are healthy... its the flu. People die from the flu.. but we don't destroy peoples lives all over the country for it.

so would the proper strategy be to isolate the high risk and let those under 30 in San Diego live life and work? I think that was the case here and for 95% of the country.


We knew all this very early on because Italy released their data. Old people with comorbidities were dying. The whole time we knew hospitals in most areas around the country were well below capacity.


Now as we open up we target areas where there are clusters. We tailor responses to how this virus spreads and we keep hospitals open by customizing are responses to local areas.

I do think that if people go into crowded spots like bars they should consent to downloading a testing and tracing app. So they can be tested and traced if a cluster breaks out.

When evidence from credible sources shows there is a dangerous aspect to a disease, would not best practices demand decisive action rather than, say, a wait and see attitude? Besides, the lockdown had potential benefits of limiting the spread of this disease for reasons previously stated in other posts.

 

[Nine_Ender]

When evidence from credible sources shows there is a dangerous aspect to a disease, would not best practices demand decisive action rather than, say, a wait and see attitude? Besides, the lockdown had potential benefits of limiting the spread of this disease for reasons previously stated in other posts.

Maybe it's just a form of denial. They don't want to admit they can be harmed by the virus or that it will be a factor in their life beyond the lock down that is ending.

 

[jem]

This is why I call you nine morons.
I have told you directly multiple times I could be hurt by the virus... but I can't hide from it.
I am not going to hide in my home from a virus that will most likely treat me like the flu. It could kill me, but so can the flu.

In fact unless you plan to hide until if and when we get the vaccine... you are likely to get exposed to the virus too.

So your implicit shutdown forever belief is really moronic. Our shutdown in the US did not make this virus go away so after the first about 3 weeks it has done far more damage than it has saved in all likelyhood.

Maybe it's just a form of denial. They don't want to admit they can be harmed by the virus or that it will be a factor in their life beyond the lock down that is ending.

 

[Bugenhagen]

Can you imagine what would happen to all Jem's beloved text if you forced him to create a basic business logical flowchart?

This would be how liberals vs conservatives put gas in a car after two days his blathering.

 

[Snarkhund]

Can you imagine what would happen to all Jem's beloved text if you forced him to create a basic business logical flowchart?

This would be how liberals vs conservatives put gas in a car after two days his blathering.

View attachment 231782

lol cool

I love Rube Goldberg and I'm a fan of Escher too.

Gotta say I understand it something like Jem does. Infection is not certain but it is highly probable. So mostly everyone is going to encounter this virus over time. A curve-flattening schema was pursued to prevent our medical infrastructure from collapsing. The curve-flattening mitigated the problem it was intended to mitigate. Now upon reopening there are increased cases and perhaps deaths. Well duh.

Now in some locations the level of new cases is causing concern as it did originally in that we don't want the hospitals overcome with patients so you see a bit of tightening in those places and some re-emphasis on masks and distancing. Some secondary shutdowns are being mandated in those places which are cities and counties not entire states.

At this point the economic damage may be causing more personal hardship to a wider population than the disease has. It may be regarded historically as The Great Mistake.