9 ms·

It means their body responds to the virus, we aren't necessarily clear on why. Supposedly, this could be because they came in contact with SAR COV-2 OR some oth

It means their body responds to the virus, we aren't necessarily clear on why. Supposedly, this could be because they came in contact with SAR COV-2 OR some other virus which enabled the response. In this case, 77% of participants were in the medical profession and were evaluated between May and June 2020. I suspect they came in contact with SAR COV-2 and didn't even realize it (body fought it off). What this study is really suggesting is that your body either (a) has an immune response from previous contact (likely due to similarity with regular corona viruses) or (b) lots of people show no symptoms (we know this) and that they obtain an immune response from it. In either case, the SAR COV-2 is likely far-less dangerous in the sense that more people have it and there are less deaths per infection OR many of us have a natural immune response (more than previously suspected).

maxerickson 6y ago
The conclusion the study authors came to is different than yours: It is unclear whether this antibody reactivity may confer clinical benefits, for instance, modulating the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
IgorPartola 6y ago
Well, we do know how dangerous this virus is. This new data doesn’t tell us anything new because mortality rate is mortality rate and that’s that. What this data might do is help point to what further research to conduct to try to figure out why some people have such strong reactions to COVID while others have few or no symptoms at all.
- nostromo 6y ago
  > mortality rate is mortality rate and that’s that Not really. Mortality rate is number of deaths / number of infections. We roughly know the total number of deaths. We have no idea what the total number of infections has been.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    For practical purposes, do you want to count these symptom-free infections in that calculation? Knowing this, would you want to do anything differently in how we handle this pandemic? I don’t see how this changes much at all about our present situation.
    - mod 6y ago
      What are you saying? We should continue to make decisions based on the pretend mortality rate and ignore the true one? Of course we "want to know it."
      - IgorPartola 6y ago
        I am not against knowledge in any way. More research will only help. What I am saying is that in the people who get sick, the mortality rate is 1-3%. This data does not tell us whether that generalizes to everyone or not because merely having these antibodies does not guarantee that you actually won’t get deathly ill. It could be interpreted that you have full immunity or it could be interpreted that you have a weak immunity to COVID. More research is necessary. However the “pretend mortality rate” you refer to is not a thing. It is 1-3% in people who test positive, which correlates pretty strongly with people who have the disease. Think about it this way: the yearly flu in 2018-2019 had a mortality rate of 1.3-48.7% according to the CDC. The denominator in that was 61,000 or so cases. If you found out that 100,000 additional people were exposed to the flu but had no symptoms and by any definition had no flu illness would that change your outlook on whether the flu vaccine or hand washing is worth it? Or another example: there is surgery which has a mortality rate of 15% due to post surgery infection. Not everybody needs the surgery, only 100 people per year do. Does that mean the rate of mortality here is fake because the denominator should be 7.5 billion? Or should we only count the people who get the disease that necessitates the surgery?
        mod 6y ago
        > If you found out that 100,000 additional people were exposed to the flu but had no symptoms and by any definition had no flu illness would that change your outlook on whether the flu vaccine or hand washing is worth it? Yes, of course my outlook would change. Not on the binary scale--i wouldn't suddenly think it's not worth it to wash hands-- but I would want to know when deciding on measures. The mortality rate is a specific figure, it's not whatever figure makes your reaction most appropriate. If some people get the virus and have no symptoms, that's an incredibly important piece of the puzzle when deciding how to proceed. Using your exaggerated examples, what if 99% of the population didn't suffer any adverse effects? Wouldn't you reevaluate the current response in light of that?
- markwkw 6y ago
  We know the mortality rate to a degree. Mortality rate is number of deaths over the number of instances. If you have limits on the accuracy of the denominator you have limits on the accuracy of mortality rate. Sero studies like this one suggest to how many infections of the virus we have been missing.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    This study doesn’t suggest any number of infections. We don’t know if by any definition people who have these antibodies had a COVID infection or not. We know deaths / symptomatic infections really well due to the large numbers involved.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Wouldn't mortality rate drop off a cliff once we have herd immunity?
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    The current answer to me seems to be that we do not know one way or the other. The hope is that it will but we are just now starting to get some data on how effective vaccines are at preventing transmission (Pfizer seems effective, others have no conclusive data AFAIK), we don’t know what herd immunity actually is (Fauci estimates between 70 and 95% vaccinated; 70% is possible without vaccinating children, 95% is not. In the US you have enough anti-vaxxers to prevent herd immunity from ever happening even at 70%), we don’t know how long the vaccine is good for (current estimate is at least 6 months but no clue if it is more), and we don’t know what other mutations will show up. The peachy scenario is that we vaccinate everyone super quickly while keeping social distancing and masks to not have any new variants develop and herd immunity can be achieved with very low percentages. The other scenario is that we take our time, dozens of vaccine resistant variants pop up in the meantime and it never goes away because a virus can mutate and spread more quickly than we can play whack a mole.

maxerickson 6y ago

The conclusion the study authors came to is different than yours: It is unclear whether this antibody reactivity may confer clinical benefits, for instance, modulating the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

IgorPartola 6y ago

Well, we do know how dangerous this virus is. This new data doesn’t tell us anything new because mortality rate is mortality rate and that’s that. What this data might do is help point to what further research to conduct to try to figure out why some people have such strong reactions to COVID while others have few or no symptoms at all.

nostromo 6y ago
> mortality rate is mortality rate and that’s that Not really. Mortality rate is number of deaths / number of infections. We roughly know the total number of deaths. We have no idea what the total number of infections has been.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  For practical purposes, do you want to count these symptom-free infections in that calculation? Knowing this, would you want to do anything differently in how we handle this pandemic? I don’t see how this changes much at all about our present situation.
  - mod 6y ago
    What are you saying? We should continue to make decisions based on the pretend mortality rate and ignore the true one? Of course we "want to know it."
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      I am not against knowledge in any way. More research will only help. What I am saying is that in the people who get sick, the mortality rate is 1-3%. This data does not tell us whether that generalizes to everyone or not because merely having these antibodies does not guarantee that you actually won’t get deathly ill. It could be interpreted that you have full immunity or it could be interpreted that you have a weak immunity to COVID. More research is necessary. However the “pretend mortality rate” you refer to is not a thing. It is 1-3% in people who test positive, which correlates pretty strongly with people who have the disease. Think about it this way: the yearly flu in 2018-2019 had a mortality rate of 1.3-48.7% according to the CDC. The denominator in that was 61,000 or so cases. If you found out that 100,000 additional people were exposed to the flu but had no symptoms and by any definition had no flu illness would that change your outlook on whether the flu vaccine or hand washing is worth it? Or another example: there is surgery which has a mortality rate of 15% due to post surgery infection. Not everybody needs the surgery, only 100 people per year do. Does that mean the rate of mortality here is fake because the denominator should be 7.5 billion? Or should we only count the people who get the disease that necessitates the surgery?
      - mod 6y ago
        > If you found out that 100,000 additional people were exposed to the flu but had no symptoms and by any definition had no flu illness would that change your outlook on whether the flu vaccine or hand washing is worth it? Yes, of course my outlook would change. Not on the binary scale--i wouldn't suddenly think it's not worth it to wash hands-- but I would want to know when deciding on measures. The mortality rate is a specific figure, it's not whatever figure makes your reaction most appropriate. If some people get the virus and have no symptoms, that's an incredibly important piece of the puzzle when deciding how to proceed. Using your exaggerated examples, what if 99% of the population didn't suffer any adverse effects? Wouldn't you reevaluate the current response in light of that?
markwkw 6y ago
We know the mortality rate to a degree. Mortality rate is number of deaths over the number of instances. If you have limits on the accuracy of the denominator you have limits on the accuracy of mortality rate. Sero studies like this one suggest to how many infections of the virus we have been missing.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  This study doesn’t suggest any number of infections. We don’t know if by any definition people who have these antibodies had a COVID infection or not. We know deaths / symptomatic infections really well due to the large numbers involved.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Wouldn't mortality rate drop off a cliff once we have herd immunity?
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  The current answer to me seems to be that we do not know one way or the other. The hope is that it will but we are just now starting to get some data on how effective vaccines are at preventing transmission (Pfizer seems effective, others have no conclusive data AFAIK), we don’t know what herd immunity actually is (Fauci estimates between 70 and 95% vaccinated; 70% is possible without vaccinating children, 95% is not. In the US you have enough anti-vaxxers to prevent herd immunity from ever happening even at 70%), we don’t know how long the vaccine is good for (current estimate is at least 6 months but no clue if it is more), and we don’t know what other mutations will show up. The peachy scenario is that we vaccinate everyone super quickly while keeping social distancing and masks to not have any new variants develop and herd immunity can be achieved with very low percentages. The other scenario is that we take our time, dozens of vaccine resistant variants pop up in the meantime and it never goes away because a virus can mutate and spread more quickly than we can play whack a mole.