3 ms·

There's also this review which shows "limited evidence". https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766097 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullart

There's also this review which shows "limited evidence". https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766097 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766097 I think this is scientist talk for meaning "likely" but "not exhaustively proven" yet. The article explains the situation very well and I suggest a thorough read. It would be very upending if a virus such as this one did not confer immunity. edit: from the referenced article: > To date, no human reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 have been confirmed.

joe_the_user 6y ago
I suspect viral load is involved. If someone is exposed to enough virus, or often enough, the default antibody response may not be enough. That's the thing about "immunity passport", it implies here you have someone you can expose to the virus all day long. I suspect no one can survive unlimited expose to whatever deadly disease without getting sick. I mean, as I understand it, for most diseases, the purpose of vaccines is to get the (over-used) "herd immunity", meaning people are immune enough on average to stop the spread of the disease. Situation were a substantial portion of people refuse vaccines (thanx, antivaxer) can result in outbreaks where vaccinated people also get sick.
- amluto 6y ago
  Exposure cuts both ways. In some cases, constant reexposure increases immunity. For example, shingles is believed to be less likely if you are regularly re-exposed to chicken pox.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    But that doesn't seem like a direct counter-example, since it doesn't involve not getting sick from a high viral load.
- goalieca 6y ago
  > I suspect viral load is involved. You mean dose? The current vaccine research is measuring antibody titres (how much) is being generated by an inoculated individual in reference to a recovered patient. The next step is to determine if those antibodies are actually sufficient as they are different.

joe_the_user 6y ago

I suspect viral load is involved. If someone is exposed to enough virus, or often enough, the default antibody response may not be enough. That's the thing about "immunity passport", it implies here you have someone you can expose to the virus all day long. I suspect no one can survive unlimited expose to whatever deadly disease without getting sick. I mean, as I understand it, for most diseases, the purpose of vaccines is to get the (over-used) "herd immunity", meaning people are immune enough on average to stop the spread of the disease. Situation were a substantial portion of people refuse vaccines (thanx, antivaxer) can result in outbreaks where vaccinated people also get sick.

amluto 6y ago
Exposure cuts both ways. In some cases, constant reexposure increases immunity. For example, shingles is believed to be less likely if you are regularly re-exposed to chicken pox.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  But that doesn't seem like a direct counter-example, since it doesn't involve not getting sick from a high viral load.
goalieca 6y ago
> I suspect viral load is involved. You mean dose? The current vaccine research is measuring antibody titres (how much) is being generated by an inoculated individual in reference to a recovered patient. The next step is to determine if those antibodies are actually sufficient as they are different.