4 ms·
What has been shown is that if you introduce the SARS-CoV-1 peptide ex vivo into cells drawn from the blood of survivors that there's a IFN-gamma response from
by lamontcg 6y ago
What has been shown is that if you introduce the SARS-CoV-1 peptide ex vivo into cells drawn from the blood of survivors that there's a IFN-gamma response from T-cells.
That shows that there's clearly some memory in the immune system, but it isn't like they did challenge testing with live SARS-CoV-1 virus to survivors to see if they got sick or not.
And we now know that the presence of a T-cell immune reaction is not sufficient to prevent you from getting sick or hospitalized. The cross-reactive T-cell responses between previously circulating human coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 was found to simply not be protective at all against disease:
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...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421001604 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...
So the paper on T-cell responses in SARS-CoV-1 patients 17 years later is not remotely as meaningful as some people suggest. It doesn't prove anything about disease or reinfection.
At the same time the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 actually is likely to be durable for many years as has been seen with HCoV-229E:
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
What the researchers there found is solid evidence that our immunity to HCoVs doesn't wane but that the virus mutates in order to reinfect. That contradicts some other studies which seem to show reinfection of ordinary coronaviruses on short timescales, but the methdology of that study seems to be more sound. That's the one that I'd cite as evidence of durable multi-year disease-preventing immunity. Although the catch is that given this viruses ability to mutate in multiple locations around the spike protein while actually increasing affinity it seems very likely that it'll eventually mutate to achieve immune escape. It is looking like it'd be pretty surprising for this to be a one-and-done like measles.
- jandrewrogers 6y agoYeah, I don’t think anyone is modeling this as something that can be eradicated, even ignoring the zoonotic aspects. The assumption, which seems quite reasonable from my perspective, is that it will become background noise long term. Never eliminated but with greatly reduced virulence.
- lamontcg 6y agoGood article on that here: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741
- spfzero 6y agoThe parent is not saying exposure to Cov-1 provides long-term immunity to Cov-2. Why are you confusing this? It says exposureto Cov-2 provides long-term immunity to Cov-2, as you would expect.
- lamontcg 6y agoThe immediate parent comment is saying that ex vivo IFNgamma responses from T-cells in the blood to SARS1 is evidence of long term immunity to SARS1. I'm using the example of the cross-reactive immune response from other human coronavirus to SARS2, and the lack of any protection conferred by that immune response towards prevention of disease or hospitalization to be a counter example to the idea that the ex vivo immune response is necessarily predictive of useful infection/disease/hospitalization prevention. We can't say that the spike in IFN gamma correlates to disease protection 20 years later, there's a lot of dots to fill in. There's a big difference between an immunologists definition of "immune response" and the public's definition of "survivor island" style bulletproof "immunity". We know the body still recognizes SARS1 17 years later. We have no idea if that person would get infected if they had dinner with someone who had SARS1. They'd probably do better than an otherwise naive person, and i wouldn't bet against that, but a T-cell response in a dish in a lab, that isn't even neutralizing, is weak evidence of an immune response.