5 ms·

And there's no evidence to date that people who test for antibodies are immune to future infections.

by greedo 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago
Ah my old friend greedo. That's how it normally works, this time could be different, but we have no reason to believe that. Generally for as long as you show antibody response you won't be re-infected because that's what antibodies do. The link I provided to the study I referenced was specifically for the purpose of, and I quote: "to assess SARS patients’ risk for future reinfection." "To be clear, most experts do think an initial infection from the coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, will grant people immunity to the virus for some amount of time. That is generally the case with acute infections from other viruses, including other coronaviruses." [1] If you think this time is different the burden of proof is on you to provide studies and not provide unsupported, unsubstantiated conjecture. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/everything-we-know-about-coronavirus-immunity-and-antibodies-and-plenty-we-still-dont/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/everything-we-know-about...
- jacquesm 7y ago
  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/warns-coronavirus-immunity-passports-200425150532564.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/warns-coronavirus-imm...
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Nothing there is at all incompatible with what I had to say. In context, the WHO is saying that getting the disease once may not be a lifetime immunity to COVID guarantee and shouldn't be used as the basis for issuance of something along the lines of yellow fever prophylaxis certifications like these [1]. I agree. In fact, its highly unlikely, as with coronaviridae we've seen that the milder the disease the less likely you are to obtain long-term immunity. Even SARS, a much, much more serious disease, gives you 2-3 years as per my reference. However, that's not what GP was arguing. GP argued broadly that "people who test for antibodies [may not be] immune to future infections." That's extremely unlikely. The question is how many people, and for how long, and then how do we utilize that information. Broadly speaking a positive test for antibodies means you're pretty likely immune at the time the test is taken. Of course the question is how that antibody response changes over time. I was pretty clear about that: "Generally for as long as you show antibody response you won't be re-infected because that's what antibodies do." The WHO is saying don't issue one-off certificates of immunity for life on the basis of testing positive for antibodies at one point in time before we know more. I agree. I suspect a round of infection is likely to tide us over to a broad vaccination program, but we need a study. [1] https://thegate.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IMG_0028.jpg https://thegate.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/...
    - greedo 7y ago
      This is crystal clear from the WHO: ""There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."" They were prompted to issue this because some people were touting this idea of immunity being granted perpetually and allowing people to safely return to work. "Broadly speaking, a positive test for antibodies means you're pretty likely immune at the time the test is taken." That's in complete contradiction to what the WHO is saying. Read carefully: There is no evidence. You're using circular arguments to provide bad information. Something you've consistently been doing. "...but we need a study." Why? You've said it's unlikely to be different than other viruses. Of course we need a study, because we don't know.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        No greedo, that's not the correct interpretation. There is currently no evidence of X does not mean X is not true. It just means there's no evidence of X being directly true yet. Nothing I said contradicts the WHO. What I said was that we can reasonably infer from similar coronaviruses (including both more and less severe ones that are up to 90% genetically identical) that immunity is conferred. Also from other viruses. We shouldn't base our global health policy decisions on that until we have conclusive evidence but there's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when all evidence points to immunity being conferred for some duration of time. Specifically what I said was that we do not have enough evidence to issue prophylaxis certificates, but that chances are good immunity is conferred based on studies of very similar diseases. I also stand by the fact it would be hugely surprising (totally novel) that any of those testing positive right now are actually re-infections due to the limited timescale involved. Seeing smoke doesn't mean there's fire, but it means there's a pretty good chance of fire. Yeesh.
        greedo 7y ago
        This isn't how science works. "there's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when all evidence points to immunity being conferred for some duration of time." You must have a reading problem since the WHO has said there's no evidence. None. That's crystal clear, but it doesn't align with your opinion that this is just like the flu in seriousness. There's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when your opinion is continually shown to lack even the slightest rigor in thinking. You're continually cherrypicking the most favorable reports and dismissing anything that conflicts with your opinion. As Marcellus Wallace once said, 'that sting you're feeling? It's cognitive bias.'
- greedo 7y ago
  We have no idea how long lived the antibodies we develop in response to SARS-CoV-2 last. And obviously, an initial infection to COVID-19 will generate antibodies that will immunize the patient, as long as the antibodies persist. Don't you think that if this was a foregone conclusion, we'd be able to demonstrate that? Isn't it odd, that with people having been infected and recovered months ago, that no one is saying how long the antibodies persist? In science, it's incumbent on those making the claim to provide studies and proof. That means you... And to say that this is unsupported, unsubstantiated is ridiculous, and you know it. It's straight from the WHO's mouth.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > It's straight from the WHO's mouth. Nothing I said contradicts the WHO. > Don't you think that if this was a foregone conclusion, we'd be able to demonstrate that? I'm sorry, do we need to re-prove how the immune system works? Why re-demonstrate the utterly obvious? > Isn't it odd, that with people having been infected and recovered months ago, that no one is saying how long the antibodies persist? No, because it hasn't been long enough. I'm confident that research is under way.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    but it would go against everything we know about viruses and our adaptive immune systems. I know there are some vaccines with lower take rates. Hep B requires 3 injections and only has a 60% change of generating antibodies. But an immune response from an actual virus should last for at least a few years. There are situations where you can get reinfected later in life if you're not exposed or given booster shots (likes Shingles). Is there evidences that our adaptive immune system only generates short lived antibodies, and for what families of viruses?
    - greedo 7y ago
      This should be something that can/will be resolved by testing. I find it unusual that no medical authority is going on record as saying there's any long term immunity granted by infection, and that the WHO is being extremely clear in the lack of evidence to support such a conclusion.
- greedo 7y ago
  Hi Artic, here's a new study you might find interesting. It seems to disagree with your contention that immunity is normal for coronaviruses. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long-are-people-immune-to-covid-19/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long...

And there's no evidence to date that people who test for antibodies are immune to future infections.

by greedo 7y ago

And there's no evidence to date that people who test for antibodies are immune to future infections.

Ah my old friend greedo. That's how it normally works, this time could be different, but we have no reason to believe that. Generally for as long as you show antibody response you won't be re-infected because that's what antibodies do. The link I provided to the study I referenced was specifically for the purpose of, and I quote: "to assess SARS patients’ risk for future reinfection." "To be clear, most experts do think an initial infection from the coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, will grant people immunity to the virus for some amount of time. That is generally the case with acute infections from other viruses, including other coronaviruses." [1] If you think this time is different the burden of proof is on you to provide studies and not provide unsupported, unsubstantiated conjecture. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/everything-we-know-about-coronavirus-immunity-and-antibodies-and-plenty-we-still-dont/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/everything-we-know-about...

jacquesm 7y ago
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/warns-coronavirus-immunity-passports-200425150532564.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/warns-coronavirus-imm...
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Nothing there is at all incompatible with what I had to say. In context, the WHO is saying that getting the disease once may not be a lifetime immunity to COVID guarantee and shouldn't be used as the basis for issuance of something along the lines of yellow fever prophylaxis certifications like these [1]. I agree. In fact, its highly unlikely, as with coronaviridae we've seen that the milder the disease the less likely you are to obtain long-term immunity. Even SARS, a much, much more serious disease, gives you 2-3 years as per my reference. However, that's not what GP was arguing. GP argued broadly that "people who test for antibodies [may not be] immune to future infections." That's extremely unlikely. The question is how many people, and for how long, and then how do we utilize that information. Broadly speaking a positive test for antibodies means you're pretty likely immune at the time the test is taken. Of course the question is how that antibody response changes over time. I was pretty clear about that: "Generally for as long as you show antibody response you won't be re-infected because that's what antibodies do." The WHO is saying don't issue one-off certificates of immunity for life on the basis of testing positive for antibodies at one point in time before we know more. I agree. I suspect a round of infection is likely to tide us over to a broad vaccination program, but we need a study. [1] https://thegate.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IMG_0028.jpg https://thegate.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/...
  - greedo 7y ago
    This is crystal clear from the WHO: ""There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."" They were prompted to issue this because some people were touting this idea of immunity being granted perpetually and allowing people to safely return to work. "Broadly speaking, a positive test for antibodies means you're pretty likely immune at the time the test is taken." That's in complete contradiction to what the WHO is saying. Read carefully: There is no evidence. You're using circular arguments to provide bad information. Something you've consistently been doing. "...but we need a study." Why? You've said it's unlikely to be different than other viruses. Of course we need a study, because we don't know.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      No greedo, that's not the correct interpretation. There is currently no evidence of X does not mean X is not true. It just means there's no evidence of X being directly true yet. Nothing I said contradicts the WHO. What I said was that we can reasonably infer from similar coronaviruses (including both more and less severe ones that are up to 90% genetically identical) that immunity is conferred. Also from other viruses. We shouldn't base our global health policy decisions on that until we have conclusive evidence but there's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when all evidence points to immunity being conferred for some duration of time. Specifically what I said was that we do not have enough evidence to issue prophylaxis certificates, but that chances are good immunity is conferred based on studies of very similar diseases. I also stand by the fact it would be hugely surprising (totally novel) that any of those testing positive right now are actually re-infections due to the limited timescale involved. Seeing smoke doesn't mean there's fire, but it means there's a pretty good chance of fire. Yeesh.
      - greedo 7y ago
        This isn't how science works. "there's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when all evidence points to immunity being conferred for some duration of time." You must have a reading problem since the WHO has said there's no evidence. None. That's crystal clear, but it doesn't align with your opinion that this is just like the flu in seriousness. There's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when your opinion is continually shown to lack even the slightest rigor in thinking. You're continually cherrypicking the most favorable reports and dismissing anything that conflicts with your opinion. As Marcellus Wallace once said, 'that sting you're feeling? It's cognitive bias.'
greedo 7y ago
We have no idea how long lived the antibodies we develop in response to SARS-CoV-2 last. And obviously, an initial infection to COVID-19 will generate antibodies that will immunize the patient, as long as the antibodies persist. Don't you think that if this was a foregone conclusion, we'd be able to demonstrate that? Isn't it odd, that with people having been infected and recovered months ago, that no one is saying how long the antibodies persist? In science, it's incumbent on those making the claim to provide studies and proof. That means you... And to say that this is unsupported, unsubstantiated is ridiculous, and you know it. It's straight from the WHO's mouth.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > It's straight from the WHO's mouth. Nothing I said contradicts the WHO. > Don't you think that if this was a foregone conclusion, we'd be able to demonstrate that? I'm sorry, do we need to re-prove how the immune system works? Why re-demonstrate the utterly obvious? > Isn't it odd, that with people having been infected and recovered months ago, that no one is saying how long the antibodies persist? No, because it hasn't been long enough. I'm confident that research is under way.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  but it would go against everything we know about viruses and our adaptive immune systems. I know there are some vaccines with lower take rates. Hep B requires 3 injections and only has a 60% change of generating antibodies. But an immune response from an actual virus should last for at least a few years. There are situations where you can get reinfected later in life if you're not exposed or given booster shots (likes Shingles). Is there evidences that our adaptive immune system only generates short lived antibodies, and for what families of viruses?
  - greedo 7y ago
    This should be something that can/will be resolved by testing. I find it unusual that no medical authority is going on record as saying there's any long term immunity granted by infection, and that the WHO is being extremely clear in the lack of evidence to support such a conclusion.
greedo 7y ago
Hi Artic, here's a new study you might find interesting. It seems to disagree with your contention that immunity is normal for coronaviruses. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long-are-people-immune-to-covid-19/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long...