Immunity to Covid-19 rapidly declines, research shows

[Vouthon]

Immunity to Covid-19 rapidly declines, research shows

Two new studies show that patients who have recovered from coronavirus rapidly lose antibodies, raising questions over how long immunity to the disease lasts and how reliable antibody testing is.

The studies also highlight the importance the development of a vaccine is to controlling the disease.

One study found that 10 per cent of patients hospitalised with Covid-19 in China had undetectable antibodies just weeks after recovering from the disease...

The other antibody study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, compared two groups of people who contracted the disease in Wanzhou, China in February. They looked at 37 people who had asymptomatic cases of the disease and 37 who had more severe forms.

They found that 40 per cent of people in the asymptomatic group had undetectable levels of antibodies two to three months after the infection, compared to 13 per cent in the group who had a more severe dose of the disease.

Prof Liam Smeeth, professor of clinical epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commenting on the Nature Medicine study, said there were “marked reduction” in immunity among people who had symptoms of Covid-19.

“This strongly suggests that immunity may well diminish within months of infection for a substantial proportion of people. We need larger studies with longer follow-up in more populations, but these findings do suggest that we cannot rely on people having had proven infections nor on antibody testing as strong evidence of long term immunity.”​

 

[Vouthon]

Whilst in Sweden:


Sweden's 'herd immunity' hopes are fading as only a small fraction of the population has coronavirus antibodies

Sweden's soft approach to the coronavirus has resulted in only a small portion of the population developing antibodies to the virus. This means the country appears highly unlikely to tackle the virus by achieving herd immunity.

A new study published this week showed that just 6.1% of Sweden's population had developed coronavirus antibodies by late May, a lower measure than some of its health agency's earlier models had predicted.
​

The grave peril involved in adopting such an untested and speculative strategy for handling the spread of the virus - when many, many vulnerable lives were at risk - always greatly outweighed the alleged benefits (i.e. less economic disruption) IMHO.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The problem with those statistics is it makes the likelihood of a vaccine much more remote.

The good thing is that most people are pretty much asymptomatic anyways so unless there is a major mutation they should be doing fine in the future.

Even if the immunity doesn't last very long there is some reassurance from what I understand that the body will be able to recognize the same strain upon reinfection. You might get sick still but you are unlikely to die if you survived it the first time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whilst in Sweden:


Sweden's 'herd immunity' hopes are fading as only a small fraction of the population has coronavirus antibodies

Sweden's soft approach to the coronavirus has resulted in only a small portion of the population developing antibodies to the virus. This means the country appears highly unlikely to tackle the virus by achieving herd immunity.

A new study published this week showed that just 6.1% of Sweden's population had developed coronavirus antibodies by late May, a lower measure than some of its health agency's earlier models had predicted.
​

The grave peril involved in adopting such an untested and speculative strategy for handling the spread of the virus - when many, many vulnerable lives were at risk - always greatly outweighed the alleged benefits (i.e. less economic disruption) IMHO.

I wonder how long a typical country can go with an economic disruption until a hits that point of no return.

 

[Vouthon]

The good thing is that most people are pretty much asymptomatic anyways so unless there is a major mutation they should be doing fine in the future.

There is no evidence of this "most people". A still unknown percentage of people are certainly asymptomatic but how you are deducing 'most' from that is beyond me and I would say greatly hopeful. Moreover, Asymptomatic likely still spread the disease to others who are not asymptomatic - which helps make the 'contagion' even worse (in tandem with the very long incubarion period in symptomatic cases) because there is no way of telling visually, without a test, whether people sitting next to us are infected or not.

Even if the immunity doesn't last very long there is some reassurance that the body will be able to recognize the same strain upon reinfection. You might get sick still but you were likely enough to die if you survived it the first time.

Actually, if Sars-cov-2 is anything like 'dengue fever' (and a few past studies have argued that it might be), then the reverse would hold true:

See:

Yahoo is now a part of Verizon Media

Exacerbating harm

Cross protection is only half of the story. Viruses can also exacerbate the harm caused by one another. For example, HIV and measles directly attack the immune system, weakening the body’s defences and leaving a person vulnerable to other pathogens.

But there is also another, stranger pathway. Sometimes a previous infection with one viral strain can actively help a closely related strain to invade. Dengue virus is the most famous example. A person’s first infection with dengue is likely to be mild, but the second can be life-threatening. The dengue strain that causes the second infection can hitch a ride on the antibodies that were produced to clear the first, helping the second strain to enter cells and cause a more severe infection.

Similar processes could be in play for SARS-CoV-2. If so, a previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or another coronavirus could make an infection more severe, not less.​

'Hopefully' this is not the case and future studies will disprove it. But, equally, it may be the case. That's not a risk we should actively take as societies.

I perfectly well understand the need to remain 'optimistic'. But there is no room for complacency either with such a deadly and contagious disease.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It's because of this that I have a strong suspicion that an effective vaccine for COVID-19 will never be developed. It may well be that this virus circulates every year like common cold viruses, and there may be nothing we can do to stop it. I think research would be better spent looking for a cure/treatment for the symptoms, rather than trying to prevent it with a vaccine (which is highly unlikely) and social distancing (which isn't sustainable for an entire human society).

 

[Nakosis]

Immunity to Covid-19 rapidly declines, research shows

Two new studies show that patients who have recovered from coronavirus rapidly lose antibodies, raising questions over how long immunity to the disease lasts and how reliable antibody testing is.

The studies also highlight the importance the development of a vaccine is to controlling the disease.

One study found that 10 per cent of patients hospitalised with Covid-19 in China had undetectable antibodies just weeks after recovering from the disease...

The other antibody study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, compared two groups of people who contracted the disease in Wanzhou, China in February. They looked at 37 people who had asymptomatic cases of the disease and 37 who had more severe forms.

They found that 40 per cent of people in the asymptomatic group had undetectable levels of antibodies two to three months after the infection, compared to 13 per cent in the group who had a more severe dose of the disease.

Prof Liam Smeeth, professor of clinical epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commenting on the Nature Medicine study, said there were “marked reduction” in immunity among people who had symptoms of Covid-19.

“This strongly suggests that immunity may well diminish within months of infection for a substantial proportion of people. We need larger studies with longer follow-up in more populations, but these findings do suggest that we cannot rely on people having had proven infections nor on antibody testing as strong evidence of long term immunity.”​

Could it be they are looking for the wrong antibodies?
A vaccine may not be the fix either. Every year for the flu they provide a different vaccine. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Covid 19 may mutate so that any vaccine they come up with will only have limited effectiveness.

Lots of undetermined stuff in the air so I'm not going to judge anybody and just hope for the best for everyone.

 

[Vouthon]

It's because of this that I have a strong suspicion that an effective vaccine for COVID-19 will never be developed. It may well be that this virus circulates every year like common cold viruses, and there may be nothing we can do to stop it. I think research would be better spent looking for a cure/treatment for the symptoms, rather than trying to prevent it with a vaccine (which is highly unlikely) and social distancing (which isn't sustainable for an entire human society).

Irrespective of whether an effective vaccine can be found (and the levels of natural antibiotic resistance are not necessarily tantamount to this being 'impossible' or even improbable, we really can't say), however, hopes for a 'herd immunity' also need to be realistically dissected and tempered. There has never been strong evidence for this being the case with Covid.

There are vaccine trials in operation right now across the world that scientists are suggesting may provide some immunity, so at least there is something tangible on that front. The studies on 'herd immunity', on the other hand, are coming up short.

 

[Vouthon]

A vaccine may not be the fix either. Every year for the flu they provide a different vaccine. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Covid 19 may mutate so that any vaccine they come up with will only have limited effectiveness.

True, we just don't know.

People often think of a 'one-shot vaccine' but for a coronavirus, thinking in terms of a range of vaccines produced to address specific strains (as with flu shots) over a much longer period of time may be a more realistic horizon if the virus is set to remain spreading in the general population. I've read that Covid-19 is less impacted by 'seasonality' as well, however (compared with flu - which is why covid still keeps spreading in summer months and hotter climes without a discernible 20% decline in transmission).

Who knows though.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Whilst in Sweden:


Sweden's 'herd immunity' hopes are fading as only a small fraction of the population has coronavirus antibodies

Sweden's soft approach to the coronavirus has resulted in only a small portion of the population developing antibodies to the virus. This means the country appears highly unlikely to tackle the virus by achieving herd immunity.

A new study published this week showed that just 6.1% of Sweden's population had developed coronavirus antibodies by late May, a lower measure than some of its health agency's earlier models had predicted.
​

The grave peril involved in adopting such an untested and speculative strategy for handling the spread of the virus - when many, many vulnerable lives were at risk - always greatly outweighed the alleged benefits (i.e. less economic disruption) IMHO.

I agree. There is so much we don’t know about this virus and it is not clear how practical a vaccine will be. I believe the elimination strategy taken by New Zealand is the wisest and safest path both for the health of the population and for the economy. Although New Zealand has the huge advantage of being an Island, the strategies of high rates of testing, vigorous contact tracing, quarantine, judicious social distancing and basic hygiene are effective if properly applied. It appears many countries have given up applying even the basics and are opting for herd immunity as a default position.

 

[Vouthon]

It appears many countries have given up applying even the basics and are opting for herd immunity as a default position.

Indeed, which is extremely worrying given that 'herd immunity' is the option with the least empirical evidence in its favour.

 

[Nakosis]

True, we just don't know.

People often think of a 'one-shot vaccine' but for a coronavirus, thinking in terms of a range of vaccines produced to address specific strains (as with flu shots) over a much longer period of time may be a more realistic horizon if the virus is set to remain spreading in the general population. I've read that Covid-19 is less impacted by 'seasonality' as well, however (compared with flu - which is why covid still keeps spreading in summer months and hotter climes without a discernible 20% decline in transmission).

Who knows though.

I think there are precautions we can take without closing down the economy. Testing, masks, social distance. IMO, I think Trump and any Protesters should require masks. It'd be nice if Trump set an example. This really shouldn't have become a political issue.

 

[Vouthon]

I think there are precautions we can take without closing down the economy. Testing, masks, social distance. IMO, I think Trump and any Protesters should require masks. It'd be nice if Trump set an example. This really shouldn't have become a political issue.

Agreed, although I would personally say that localised (and in severe cases 'generalised') lockdowns are still essential along with rigorous handwashing, mask-wearing and social distancing. Lisbon in Portugal is again set to enter into local lockdown. Small parts of Germany have imposed local lockdown after a mass outbreak at their largest meat-factory. Israel is contemplating another lockdown in response to sharp rises in cases and deaths.

If we are going to get this contagion under control, then we need to avail ourselves of all available options. Otherwise, health systems are almost inevitably going to be overwhelmed again at some point - which will itself negatively affect the wider economy (along with the contagion of social panic from more severe outbreaks in hotspots).

The virus doesn't recognise borders or economic models. It just latches itself onto yet another 'host'.

 

[Polymath257]

Indeed, which is extremely worrying given that 'herd immunity' is the option with the least empirical evidence in its favour.

In fact, given the topic of the OP, it is highly unlikely to develop at all.

 

[Vouthon]

In fact, given the topic of the OP, it is highly unlikely to develop at all.

If the studies are correct and replicated in future, I think it would look absolutely impossible to get 'herd' immunity (partial immunity in some of the population, maybe, but nowhere near herd levels).

 

[Polymath257]

Could it be they are looking for the wrong antibodies?
A vaccine may not be the fix either. Every year for the flu they provide a different vaccine. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Covid 19 may mutate so that any vaccine they come up with will only have limited effectiveness.

Lots of undetermined stuff in the air so I'm not going to judge anybody and just hope for the best for everyone.

At this point, it doesn't look like COV-19 mutates in this way.

There *is* some suggestion that there are other anti-bodies that are produced that can give immunity, but that is not established for certain.

On the other hand, if it is the case that antibodies don't last, then herd immunity will be almost impossible to achieve.

A vaccine is the most likely solution, but only if it can produce an immune response that lasts.

 

[Polymath257]

It's because of this that I have a strong suspicion that an effective vaccine for COVID-19 will never be developed. It may well be that this virus circulates every year like common cold viruses, and there may be nothing we can do to stop it. I think research would be better spent looking for a cure/treatment for the symptoms, rather than trying to prevent it with a vaccine (which is highly unlikely) and social distancing (which isn't sustainable for an entire human society).

That seems excessively fatalistic to me.

I don't think that requiring masks and a good deal of social distancing is impossible for an entire society. But people have to actually follow the rules.

The problem is that we have people 'leading' us that refuse to acknowledge the facts of this virus, and they promote people who don't follow the rules of safety.

It is far from clear that a vaccine is impossible. I think it even likely. But I do agree that we can/should look at ways to save people once they get this virus (steroids seem to be helpful, but they also have drawbacks), but an ounce of prevention....

 

[Polymath257]

Another treatment of the same story:
Immunity to COVID-19 may wane just 2-3 months after infection, study suggests

One aspect is that we don't know to what extent the decline in 'neutralizing antibodies' means a decrease in subsequent immunity.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That seems excessively fatalistic to me.

I don't think that requiring masks and a good deal of social distancing is impossible for an entire society. But people have to actually follow the rules.

The problem is that we have people 'leading' us that refuse to acknowledge the facts of this virus, and they promote people who don't follow the rules of safety.

It is far from clear that a vaccine is impossible. I think it even likely. But I do agree that we can/should look at ways to save people once they get this virus (steroids seem to be helpful, but they also have drawbacks), but an ounce of prevention....

And that's the problem. Many people don't follow the rules, at least where I live. And don't get me wrong, I DO follow them, but I think it's ridiculous to assume a lockdown is sustainable for a whole society since so many are breaking the rules already. On a somewhat unrelated note, my region is seeing one of the biggest spikes of cases in the country, with hundreds of active cases in my small community which previously had none. What is somewhat encouraging is that nearly everyone has mild illness, including people in nursing homes and those expected to be severely ill. Strangely one of the only few critically ill patients was in his 20s. Bottom line is this is a very weird virus that seems to greatly vary in severity and that no one really understands...

 

[Polymath257]

And that's the problem. Many people don't follow the rules, at least where I live. And don't get me wrong, I DO follow them, but I think it's ridiculous to assume a lockdown is sustainable for a whole society since so many are breaking the rules already. On a somewhat unrelated note, my region is seeing one of the biggest spikes of cases in the country, with hundreds of active cases in my small community which previously had none. What is somewhat encouraging is that nearly everyone has mild illness, including people in nursing homes and those expected to be severely ill. Strangely one of the only few critically ill patients was in his 20s. Bottom line is this is a very weird virus that seems to greatly vary in severity and that no one really understands...

Well, the fact that other countries have managed to follow the rules shows that it is possible. It's just that people here don't like to be told what do to, especially by 'experts'.

If people would wear masks and keep a distance, the lock down aspect could be gradually lifted. But as long as people are idiots, there will have to be a lock down. And, of course, the covidiot-in-chief just makes things worse and worse (when has he *ever* made anything better?).