4 ms·
Not an immunology expert, but the focus on antibody titers seems to reek of corporate conflict of interest. It's pretty well understood that antibodies will bre
by packetlost 5y ago
Not an immunology expert, but the focus on antibody titers seems to reek of corporate conflict of interest. It's pretty well understood that antibodies will break down and mostly fall to undetectable levels after a few months of an infection (in most cases, and in individuals who actually produce antibodies, not everyone will such as immune-compromised people) , but there's a huge financial incentive for vaccine producers to focus on these studies because it paints the picture that people need continuous boosters for protection. That being said, it's harder to detect other forms of immunity such as memory T and B cells, so it's not like the studies are completely disingenuous, it's just easier to do the studies that way.
At this point in the pandemic, I think full immunity shouldn't be the goal for most individuals. COVID and it's variants are never going away, so unless you are high risk, live with someone who is high risk, or travel a lot, the first round of vaccinations should be good enough to prevent serious illness in most individuals for a long time, at least until a variant that changes the spike protein enough comes around. At which point, to my understanding, the efficacy of most vaccines will drop significantly below natural infection, as most target specific protein structures on the virus capsid (in this case, the "spike protein").
- q1w2 5y agoYour first sentence is contradicted by the last sentence in your first paragraph (which is correct). B-Cell immunity is much much harder to detect and cannot be done in any test given to the public. It's also difficult to determine from a positive b-cell result whether that person will have a strong or weak immune response - and how soon. I think everyone in the immunology community is aware of the limitations of antibody tests, but I think it's wrong to attribute how it's portrayed in the media as corporate conflict of interest. My impression is that it the media needs simple stories to build their narratives and cannot complicate things with b-cell immunity. I agree with everything else you said, but I think the story for yearly (maybe bi-yearly) covid vaccines, as we have with flu, have a very strong case even given immunity memory cells.
- packetlost 5y agoThe sentences don't really contradict, both can be true (though I will concede the first sentence is not immediately relevant to this particular study). My whole point is that the focus on immunity (vs mild cases) by vaccine manufacturers is potentially misguided and incentivized by selling more boosters.