4 ms·
> The closer we get, the better it is. Having 21% "immune" leads to far different outcomes than .1%. It depends on how long the immunity lasts. If it's permane
by badfrog 6y ago
> The closer we get, the better it is. Having 21% "immune" leads to far different outcomes than .1%.
It depends on how long the immunity lasts. If it's permanent, this is indeed great. If it lasts only a few months, this 21% won't make any difference for another wave of infections this fall.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoWe use the term "immunity" but we should remember that there is a difference between the presence of active antibodies and the presence of immune "memory cells". The latter hang around long-term, even if the former disappear. So at a minimum if one does develop infection they will recover far sooner and with better outcomes. And likely will reach a far lower peak viral load which might bring down transmission.
- maxerickson 6y agoThat is not well established. It's likely enough, but we don't gain long term immunity to every virus that we successfully clear.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoIt is well established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_T_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_T_cell You are conflating active circulating antibodies with the memory T cells. Which is literally what my entire comment was about.
- mlyle 6y agoOf course, there's other confounds. Like the somewhat recent discovery that we end up with antigen experience / "memory" of diseases that we've never contracted. (Perhaps from viral fragments in the environment??)