3 ms·

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/does-prior-exposure-to-coronaviruses-protect-you https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/0

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/does-prior-exposure-to-coronaviruses-protect-you https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/do... > But here’s the key part: “cross-react” does not mean “neutralize” and it does not mean “provide protection from”. These antibodies may or may not have been neutralizing against the other coronaviruses, but they don’t seem to have any such effect on the current one. And in keeping with that, having such cross-reactive antibodies seems to provide no protection against catching SARS-Cov2 or against being hospitalized with it if you do. There’s no difference in the infection/hospitalization rates of the people who had cross-reactive coronavirus serum antibodies ready to go versus those who didn’t. They’re basically useless.

walterbell 6y ago
Yes, the topic of discussion is T-cells, NOT antibodies.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  Yes, but you didn't read the article. > Now, you can still make an argument that the T cell component of immunity might provide some protection after a previous coronavirus infection. The current study didn’t address this directly, but after these results, it’s at least less likely that that’s happening. The authors make a note of this, and also note that pre-existing mucosal antibodies might exert a protective effect (which this study didn’t examine, either). But prior circulating human coronavirus antibodies, even ones that can bind to the current one – those it looks like we can rule out. Which is too bad. It's interesting that your comment omitted: > The current study didn’t address this directly, but after these results, it’s at least less likely that that’s happening. Why is that?