4 ms·

Sensationalist headline. 1. Sample size was 130 2. Hasn't been peer-reviewed 3. "What this will mean to herd immunity will require more data from other parts

Sensationalist headline. 1. Sample size was 130 2. Hasn't been peer-reviewed 3. "What this will mean to herd immunity will require more data from other parts of the world," Huang Jinghe, the leader of the research team behind the report. Only interesting part: Interestingly, the levels of antibodies patients produced seemed to correlate with their ages: Middle-aged and elderly recovered patients had higher levels of antibodies. Nine of the 10 of the patients who did not develop detectable levels of coronavirus antibodies were 40 years old or younger.

mrandish 6y ago
> Nine of the 10 of the patients who did not develop detectable levels of coronavirus antibodies were 40 years old or younger. So, a small number of the people who are most likely to have asymptomatic, mild or sub-clinical bouts of CV19 don't immediately develop immunity or measurable resistance on their first exposure. This finding (if confirmed) won't have a significant impact on hospital surges or fatalities. The other thing to remember is that the same effect is seen in vaccines and other viruses. Nothing is ever 100% because humans are different. Also, serological tests for antibodies aren't perfect either. My understanding is the very best reach 95% accuracy.
- kian 6y ago
  This is also the same group of people governments seem to be relying on to provide herd immunity - so it could still be a major issue
  - rogerkirkness 6y ago
    It's an indication of mild disease if your body can fight it using generic white blood cells rather than specialized antibodies.
    - kian 6y ago
      Yes - but if we're concerned about people who are asymptomatic transmitting, and we need herd immunity in order to prevent transmission in general to the most vulnerable, then you 'getting it' and then getting better without producing antibodies means you can get it again, and thus still act as a transmission vector.

mrandish 6y ago

> Nine of the 10 of the patients who did not develop detectable levels of coronavirus antibodies were 40 years old or younger. So, a small number of the people who are most likely to have asymptomatic, mild or sub-clinical bouts of CV19 don't immediately develop immunity or measurable resistance on their first exposure. This finding (if confirmed) won't have a significant impact on hospital surges or fatalities. The other thing to remember is that the same effect is seen in vaccines and other viruses. Nothing is ever 100% because humans are different. Also, serological tests for antibodies aren't perfect either. My understanding is the very best reach 95% accuracy.

kian 6y ago
This is also the same group of people governments seem to be relying on to provide herd immunity - so it could still be a major issue
- rogerkirkness 6y ago
  It's an indication of mild disease if your body can fight it using generic white blood cells rather than specialized antibodies.
  - kian 6y ago
    Yes - but if we're concerned about people who are asymptomatic transmitting, and we need herd immunity in order to prevent transmission in general to the most vulnerable, then you 'getting it' and then getting better without producing antibodies means you can get it again, and thus still act as a transmission vector.