Immunity or not to immunity?

[Nimos]

A study of hundreds of thousands of people across England suggests immunity to the coronavirus is gradually wearing off - at least according to one measure.

Still, not enough is known to determine if antibodies provide any effective level of immunity to Covid-19, or how long people may be immune to reinfection with the coronavirus.

"This very large study has shown that the proportion of people with detectable antibodies is falling over time," Helen Ward, who is on the faculty of medicine at the school of public health at Imperial College London, said in a statement.
"We don't yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others," added Ward, who worked on the study.

Study shows evidence of waning immunity to Covid-19 - CNN

Obviously it would be insane to not hear what the leading "scientist" on Covid have to say, so we know what is really going on.

 

[Valjean]

Covid reinfection: Man gets Covid twice and second hit 'more severe'

 

[Shadow Wolf]

New A study of hundreds of thousands of people across England suggests immunity to the coronavirus is gradually wearing off - at least according to one measure.

We have confirmed cases of reinfection and even at least one death with reinfection.
Natural immunity isn't much help it seems.
Covid-19: Dutch woman who caught virus twice dies - CNN

 

[exchemist]

A study of hundreds of thousands of people across England suggests immunity to the coronavirus is gradually wearing off - at least according to one measure.

Still, not enough is known to determine if antibodies provide any effective level of immunity to Covid-19, or how long people may be immune to reinfection with the coronavirus.

"This very large study has shown that the proportion of people with detectable antibodies is falling over time," Helen Ward, who is on the faculty of medicine at the school of public health at Imperial College London, said in a statement.
"We don't yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others," added Ward, who worked on the study.

Study shows evidence of waning immunity to Covid-19 - CNN

Obviously it would be insane to not hear what the leading "scientist" on Covid have to say, so we know what is really going on.

However we need to be careful not to draw premature conclusions from this either. It is notable that in this study, health workers' immunity did not decline. The suggestion is that repeated exposure to the virus, in the course of their work, may have kept their immunity up. If that is true, it suggests to me that we could possibly move in time to a world in which a background level of the virus continues to circulate and some people catch it repeatedly, but a lot don't, or get it again only mildly, due to repeated "top-up" encounters with a low level of it.

There is also evidence emerging that the severity of a case may depend on the viral load the infected person is exposed to. This apparently is true of other respiratory viruses. This may be one reason why the acute wards are not filling as fast now as in spring, because mask-wearing and other load-reducing measures people are applying are reducing the number of viruses they spray around.

So, rather than stamping it out, my guess is we will more likely end up living with it long term, without disastrous consequences, much as we do now with flu.

Another point is that this study only looks for antibodies, which are just one component of the immune defence system. T cell immunity is apparently is different immune mechanism that some have suggested may be involved as well.

So yes, a cautionary note that people such as myself - or The Orange One - can't be too smug about being immune, but not necessarily disastrous for the future prospects for dealing with this virus.

 

[Revoltingest]

My helper needs continual reminding that I social distance.
He finds it amusing because there's no way either of us
could infect the other.
Why?
He already caught Covid, recovered, & has permanent
immunity. How does he know this? He was tested.
How?
Someone aimed a thermometer at his forehead, & pronounced
him Covid free. Immunity prevents re-infection, ya know.
How is he so expert on such things?
Common sense & right wing talk radio.
Those eggheads & college boys in epidemiology just don't
know what they're talking about. And they've been corrupted
by liberal universities. Truth comes from radio ministries.

 

[shunyadragon]

My helper needs continual reminding that I social distance.
He finds it amusing because there's no way either of us
could infect the other.
Why?
He already caught Covid, recovered, & has permanent
immunity. How does he know this? He was tested.
How?
Someone aimed a thermometer at his forehead, & pronounced
him Covid free. Immunity prevents re-infection, ya know.
How is he so expert on such things?
Common sense & right wing talk radio.
Those eggheads & college boys in epidemiology just don't
know what they're talking about. And they've been corrupted
by liberal universities. Truth comes from radio ministries.

It would be funny if it was not so tragic.

 

[shunyadragon]

However we need to be careful not to draw premature conclusions from this either. It is notable that in this study, health workers' immunity did not decline. The suggestion is that repeated exposure to the virus, in the course of their work, may have kept their immunity up. If that is true, it suggests to me that we could possibly move in time to a world in which a background level of the virus continues to circulate and some people catch it repeatedly, but a lot don't, or get it again only mildly, due to repeated "top-up" encounters with a low level of it.

I described it previously as the possibility that this corona virus may be become 'endemic' with the human population. This is similar but not the same as the flu viruses, which are endemic to the human population on a cyclic basis, jumping from animal to animal and humans. At present COVID-19 does not appear to be seasonal, but it may now move from animal to animal like cats, and other mammals outside China. The related corona viruses do appear to be endemic to Oriental Asia and in particularly Southeast Asia, and the populations have a degree of evolved regional resistance, which is not the same as herd immunity. Regional resistance in human populations is known for other viruses. The animals that are known to carry these corona viruses are native to Southeast Asia and Southern China. Countries like Vietnam have very low infection and fatality rates. This is apparent to a degree with the degrees of resistance in different ethnic groups in the west.

At present I do not consider reinfection is a major issue on the short term. The rate of mutation of COVID-19 is low when compared to the flu viruses,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is also evidence emerging that the severity of a case may depend on the viral load the infected person is exposed to. This apparently is true of other respiratory viruses. This may be one reason why the acute wards are not filling as fast now as in spring, because mask-wearing and other load-reducing measures people are applying are reducing the number of viruses they spray around.

Also, the other more cynical reason: you don't get COVID-19 twice if the first time kills you.

It's certainly not the only factor, but a major factor in the change in case fatality rate for the disease is that a lot of the truly vulnerable people who were in a position to be exposed to the disease were already dead by the time the second wave hit.

 

[exchemist]

Also, the other more cynical reason: you don't get COVID-19 twice if the first time kills you.

It's certainly not the only factor, but a major factor in the change in case fatality rate for the disease is that a lot of the truly vulnerable people who were in a position to be exposed to the disease were already dead by the time the second wave hit.

That should in principle be a factor, but I have seen no stats to show how significant it is as an explanation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also, the other more cynical reason: you don't get COVID-19 twice if the first time kills you.

Except for Zombies.

 

[pearl]

So, rather than stamping it out, my guess is we will more likely end up living with it long term, without disastrous consequences, much as we do now with flu.

Covid is not the flu, we are not learning to live with it especially the possible long term affects, but we are learning to die with it, including first responders. It didn't have to be this way

 

[exchemist]

Covid is not the flu, we are not learning to live with it especially the possible long term affects, but we are learning to die with it, including first responders. It didn't have to be this way

Yes, I know. Don't worry, I'm not one of those maniacs suggesting the right attitude to covid 19 is: "If you die, you die. Get over it!"

What I am suggesting is how the long term - looking 5 years or so ahead - may pan out if, as now seems likely, it is not possible to get long lasting immunity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The numbers of deaths are down since the disease first came out, but that is due to numerous reasons. First off those that are most at risk tend to know it, not all of course, but a fairly good percentage. It appears that older folks and those with serious preexisting conditions are avoiding crowded areas and even their own families if they are not wise enough to social distance themselves. Second experience has taught hospitals how to deal with it more effectively. The problem with herd immunity is that it would take much higher rates of infection than we now have for it to work. The percentage that has had the disease is still very low. The higher the infection rates the harder it is for those at risk to cut themselves off from the disease. Herd immunity will not work with this disease without a great cost. We would have overwhelmed medical services again and the knowledge of how to treat it effectively would not be of much use if there were no hospital beds left to treat people.

Even with a vaccine we might be facing this for quite some time. I have heard that some vaccines might have an effectiveness of only 70%. That would mean that some degree of social distancing and masks would still be necessary to get this under control.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One question.

If natural immunity dosent work, then what the hell is a vaccine gonna do?

 

[shunyadragon]

The hope for natural herd immunity took a blow with the following research:

[cite=[URL='https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/27/herd-immunity-coronavirus-antibodies-fall-after-infection-study-says.html']Coronavirus antibodies decline after infection, study finds, raising questions about herd immunity[/URL]]

HEALTH AND SCIENCE
Coronavirus antibodies decline after infection, study finds, raising questions about herd immunity

Sam Meredith

KEY POINTS

• Researchers from Imperial College London screened 365,000 people in England over three rounds of testing between June 20 and September 28.
• Analysis of finger-prick tests carried out at home found that, rather than people building immunity over time, the number of people with antibodies that can fight Covid-19 declined roughly 26% over the study period.
• The findings suggest that there may be a decline in the level of population immunity in the months following the first wave of the coronavirus epidemic, potentially dashing the hopes of those calling for a controversial herd immunity response strategy.

LONDON — Antibodies against the coronavirus fall as people recover from the disease, according to the findings of a major U.K. study, potentially dealing a blow to those pushing for so-called herd immunity.

Researchers from Imperial College London screened 365,000 people in England over three rounds of testing between June 20 and September 28.

Analysis of finger-prick tests carried out at home found that, rather than people building immunity over time, the number of people with antibodies that can fight Covid-19 declined roughly 26% over the study period."

I go with the future being more anti-virus technology as being more important and effective than vaccines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One question.

If natural immunity dosent work, then what the hell is a vaccine gonna do?

Herd immunity does not work because it would cost too much for the entire population to get ill in a short period of time. A vaccine could give us that immunity without having to have the whole population get ill. Its effectiveness could last long enough so that along with other measures we might get rid of this disease.

 

[shunyadragon]

One question.

If natural immunity dosent work, then what the hell is a vaccine gonna do?

It is not known yet that natural herd immunity is effective, but unlikely based on the research I posted. Vaccines may or may not be successful, but they are more engineered to to be effective. I mentioned that the future treatment for COVID-19 is more likely developed through medical technology, which at present has some success in research.

 

[Valjean]

One question.

If natural immunity dosent work, then what the hell is a vaccine gonna do?

I don't understand.
If a vaccine can confer a robust immunity -- something actual infection seems to do haphazardly -- why wouldn't it 'work'?

The severity of infection doesn't seem clearly related to viral load, nor do subsequent levels of IgG and IgM antibodies.
Eg: post infection immunoglobulin levels are not always related the severity of the disease, nor is their persistence.

The hope is that a high level and persistent immune response can be elicited from a vaccine. If not, perhaps we'll have to engineer a new vaccine every year, as we do for influenza.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't understand.
If a vaccine can confer a robust immunity -- something actual infection seems to do haphazardly -- why wouldn't it 'work'?

The severity of infection doesn't seem clearly related to viral load, nor do subsequent levels of IgG and IgM antibodies.
Eg: post infection immunoglobulin levels are not always related the severity of the disease, nor is their persistence.

The hope is that a high level and persistent immune response can be elicited from a vaccine. If not, perhaps we'll have to engineer a new vaccine every year, as we do for influenza.

All a vaccine does is stimulate the immune system so it can remember and attack the live virus. Catching Covid is the same as getting vaccinated, cept I understand people do have a point in saying with a vaccine, you are not as likely to die from it compared to catching it.
.

 

[Valjean]

All a vaccine does is stimulate the immune system so it can remember and attack the live virus. Catching Covid is the same as getting vaccinated, cept I understand people do have a point in saying with a vaccine, you are not as likely to die from it compared to catching it.
.

My point is that data show catching the disease does not reliably confer high or persistent antibody levels. The conferred immunity varies, they might catch it again, post infection.

We're trying to develop a vaccine that does reliably yield high and persistent immunity.