Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#21

Post by tryonenow »

rgbbtc4life wrote: post #5

The people achieving immunity through vaccination are at a huge disadvantage compared to those with natural immunity. As shown in research from the other day, natural antibodies target several proteins and more of the spike protein than Pfizer immunity does. Additionally, natural immunity stimulates both the innate immune response and killer T cell response. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing ADE among vaccin…

The high cycle counts of the PCR tests in the US make all official numbers suspect. Particularly in combination with implicit political pressure against the previous administration, and an overzealous press. The entire system - academic, medical, news and entertainment - is rotten with bias and society collectively is worse off for it, especially with respect to handling this pandemic.

It's hard to find a source now but these PCR tests were being run with cycle counts anywhere from 30-40; in this regime you are extremely likely to amplify noise and generate a huge percentage of false positives. The inventor of the PCR tests made similar comments regarding abuse of the PCR process during the HIV/aids pandemic - and wouldn't you know it, Dr. Fauci was involved in [mis]managing that pandemic as well. His self serving publication and premature press release created an ultimately unfounded stigma around HIV positivity. There is simply no reason to trust the guy now, regardless of his overtly warm, anti-trump persona. And now he has repeatedly denied before congress that he was affiliated with funding/conducting gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. But the publications, with authors publicly and directly linked to Fauci and funds he managed, are freely available online. This should be a far bigger story.

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#22

Post by [deleted] »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #6
mikem170 wrote: post #4

From the article, a section called "Prediction of the potential for long term protection" at the bottom of the Results: > The estimated neutralization level for protection from severe infection is approximately sixfold lower than the level required to protect from any symptomatic infection. Thus, a higher level of protection against severe infection is expected for any given level of vaccine efficacy against mild SAR…

I believe the paper indicates otherwise, in regards to immunity. To help make sense of the paper, I read this Science Daily article that reviews it, and contains some comments from the paper's authors. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210517105727.h... Here, one of the people associated with the paper mentions: "Vaccination works very well to prevent both symptoms and severe disease in the short to mediu…

[deleted]

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#23

Post by mikem170 »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #6
mikem170 wrote: post #4

From the article, a section called "Prediction of the potential for long term protection" at the bottom of the Results: > The estimated neutralization level for protection from severe infection is approximately sixfold lower than the level required to protect from any symptomatic infection. Thus, a higher level of protection against severe infection is expected for any given level of vaccine efficacy against mild SAR…

I believe the paper indicates otherwise, in regards to immunity. To help make sense of the paper, I read this Science Daily article that reviews it, and contains some comments from the paper's authors. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210517105727.h... Here, one of the people associated with the paper mentions: "Vaccination works very well to prevent both symptoms and severe disease in the short to mediu…

I added a clarifying edit to my comment above.

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#24

Post by truantbuick »

rgbbtc4life wrote: post #9
grej wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe this is clear at all. So far, it actually seems the mRNA vaccines as well as the viral vector vaccines greatly attenuate the severity of COVID among those who do catch a variant.

There is only one study to estimate the effectiveness of the mrna vaccines. It was quite small, and performed only on those who received pristine mrna injections. It's come out that the mass produced vaccine has significant mrna degradation. It's unclear how many people's vaccines were even effective. Additionally you have 9 Yankees players who were fully vaccinated contracting the virus, so its not 95% effective in…

AFAIK the only player to have tested positive for COVID in that outbreak is Gleyber Torres (the rest were support staff), who had an actual COVID infection before, which undermines your idea that getting COVID is somehow superior to getting vaccinated.

And as already mentioned, the Yankees received the J&J vaccine, which is not an MRNA vaccine.

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#25

Post by [deleted] »

rgbbtc4life wrote: post #12
xiphias2 wrote: post #2

My father tested negative for spike specific antibodies 2 weeks after the 2nd Pfizer vaccine (he's not the only one), and as I didn't find any data on people who test negative (and I know that the vaccine has 94% efficiency preventing COVID), he's still mostly not leaving his apartment. He'll have a test against the viruses themselves next week, but he'll need to wait 2 weeks for the result for that test.

If the vaccine is truly 95% effective in preventing infection, how did 9 fully vaccinated Yankees players all contract the virus?

[deleted]

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#26

Post by neither_color »

rgbbtc4life wrote: post #12
xiphias2 wrote: post #2

My father tested negative for spike specific antibodies 2 weeks after the 2nd Pfizer vaccine (he's not the only one), and as I didn't find any data on people who test negative (and I know that the vaccine has 94% efficiency preventing COVID), he's still mostly not leaving his apartment. He'll have a test against the viruses themselves next week, but he'll need to wait 2 weeks for the result for that test.

If the vaccine is truly 95% effective in preventing infection, how did 9 fully vaccinated Yankees players all contract the virus?

5% of one hundred million people is 5 million people.

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#27

Post by atty »

verdverm wrote: post #17
rgbbtc4life wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the vaccine is truly 95% effective in preventing infection, how did 9 fully vaccinated Yankees players all contract the virus?

1. It was a single player, the rest were other staff 2. Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system. Natural exposure works the same way. This it is not surprising that 8/9 Yankees which tested positive were asymptomatic

This is incorrect - from population studies, we now know that both the mRNA vaccines reduce infection rates and reduce severity of symptoms for those who do get infected. In fact, they both show about 90% efficacy at preventing infection at all. That number is probably trending down a bit with all the new strains, but it is still very high.

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#28

Post by christkv »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #6
mikem170 wrote: post #4

From the article, a section called "Prediction of the potential for long term protection" at the bottom of the Results: > The estimated neutralization level for protection from severe infection is approximately sixfold lower than the level required to protect from any symptomatic infection. Thus, a higher level of protection against severe infection is expected for any given level of vaccine efficacy against mild SAR…

I believe the paper indicates otherwise, in regards to immunity. To help make sense of the paper, I read this Science Daily article that reviews it, and contains some comments from the paper's authors. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210517105727.h... Here, one of the people associated with the paper mentions: "Vaccination works very well to prevent both symptoms and severe disease in the short to mediu…

So it will become endemic and be one of the common colds ?

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#29

Post by yosito »

xiphias2 wrote: post #2

My father tested negative for spike specific antibodies 2 weeks after the 2nd Pfizer vaccine (he's not the only one), and as I didn't find any data on people who test negative (and I know that the vaccine has 94% efficiency preventing COVID), he's still mostly not leaving his apartment. He'll have a test against the viruses themselves next week, but he'll need to wait 2 weeks for the result for that test.

I wonder if an expert could chime in on this. If someone tests negative for antibodies a few weeks after a vaccine, should that person get vaccinated again? Maybe with a different vaccine?

Re: Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid

#30

Post by BurningFrog »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #6
mikem170 wrote: post #4

From the article, a section called "Prediction of the potential for long term protection" at the bottom of the Results: > The estimated neutralization level for protection from severe infection is approximately sixfold lower than the level required to protect from any symptomatic infection. Thus, a higher level of protection against severe infection is expected for any given level of vaccine efficacy against mild SAR…

I believe the paper indicates otherwise, in regards to immunity. To help make sense of the paper, I read this Science Daily article that reviews it, and contains some comments from the paper's authors. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210517105727.h... Here, one of the people associated with the paper mentions: "Vaccination works very well to prevent both symptoms and severe disease in the short to mediu…

Does "6-fold lower level" mean "a sixth of the level"?
Post reply on HN