3 ms·

The 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 immunit

• lamontcg 5y ago
  The 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.