3 ms·

> and yet do not either seem to get infected nor to develop antibodies One aspect that's worth mentioning imo is that while a percentage of people has been rep

> and yet do not either seem to get infected nor to develop antibodies One aspect that's worth mentioning imo is that while a percentage of people has been reported not to develop anti-spike antibodies at a measurable level [1], other factors come into play as well. - Antibody levels after natural infection wane [2] with seroreversion (like seroconversion but the other way around) being common - Some tests used by researchers have low sensitivity (especially many weeks after infection) - Qualitative assays may return negative results even though antibodies may be detected through other methods [3] - There are multiple targets that people may develop antibodies against, testing only for one target like N or S is not conclusive [4, since I can't seem to find a better study on this topic I saw earlier this week] [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34716320/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34716320/ [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94453-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94453-5 [3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34213733/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34213733/ [4]: https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/142386 https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/142386

JPKab 5y ago
A big theme that I see in all of this is the fact that we have public health officials making proclamations with high certainty like "Natural immunity is inferior to vaccine induced immunity and therefore you need to get vaxxed even if you recovered from a previous infection" in a specific area of study that is ongoing and in constant flux. It's clear to me that we are only scratching the surface of understanding the immune system. Maybe they are right when they say this, but I don't know, and I strongly suspect the scientists don't know yet either, considering how much research is still on-going. I was being told with absolute certainty by friends that natural immunity is less effective than the vaccines, while simultaneously a high-N longitudinal study from Israel is showing a rate of reinfection far lower amongst previously infected vs. breakthrough infections in the vaccinated. I think that the certainty of this conclusion is driven by antibody measurements, but not taking into account some of the things this study is mentioning, like memory T-cells. One of the assumptions that is pretty baked into the public health folks that the scientists are definitely not certain about is the spike protein being the ideal binding target for MRNA vaccines. This article is indicating that they are searching for other targets to create a vaccine that functions, in effect, like what this initial one was SUPPOSED to do: Not be leaky. My suspicion is that the second generation COVID vaccine will be a one and done shot, with no boosters needed. At least I hope so.

JPKab 5y ago

A big theme that I see in all of this is the fact that we have public health officials making proclamations with high certainty like "Natural immunity is inferior to vaccine induced immunity and therefore you need to get vaxxed even if you recovered from a previous infection" in a specific area of study that is ongoing and in constant flux. It's clear to me that we are only scratching the surface of understanding the immune system. Maybe they are right when they say this, but I don't know, and I strongly suspect the scientists don't know yet either, considering how much research is still on-going. I was being told with absolute certainty by friends that natural immunity is less effective than the vaccines, while simultaneously a high-N longitudinal study from Israel is showing a rate of reinfection far lower amongst previously infected vs. breakthrough infections in the vaccinated. I think that the certainty of this conclusion is driven by antibody measurements, but not taking into account some of the things this study is mentioning, like memory T-cells. One of the assumptions that is pretty baked into the public health folks that the scientists are definitely not certain about is the spike protein being the ideal binding target for MRNA vaccines. This article is indicating that they are searching for other targets to create a vaccine that functions, in effect, like what this initial one was SUPPOSED to do: Not be leaky. My suspicion is that the second generation COVID vaccine will be a one and done shot, with no boosters needed. At least I hope so.