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

51–60 of 77 posts

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

#51

Post by jacobmischka »

timr wrote: post #48
PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this depends on what we mean when we say "common cold." I perceive the topic as characterized by answers to the questions of: 1. How easily can I catch the virus? 2. How likely am I to experience severe symptoms when infected? 3. Are there treatments that will significantly help me if I experience severe symptoms? My readings indicate covid appears to be more infectious than influenza, but I do not know the co…

The OP asked a simple question that requires no definitional equivocation. You are complicating the question unnecessarily. The question is: will the virus become endemic. The simple answer is "yes", because it is already endemic : it has multiple mammalian reservoirs, is found in every country on earth, and is ubiquitous in the human population. It is endemic. Theories about severity, treatment, etc., are completely…

How is it irrelevant? It seems like some of the most relevant considerations when explicitly asking about something compared to the common cold, which is exactly what they did.

This was a super weird reaction to someone's detailed yet brief and thoughtful response.

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

#52

Post by AlexCoventry »

dEnigma wrote: post #34
AlexCoventry wrote: post #15

I'm a little surprised this is in nature... Isn't that exactly what you'd expect?

But not everything turns out as you'd expect, so it's important to actually test and provide evidence.

Yeah, it just seems unusual for Nature to publish such a confirmatory outcome.

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

#53

Post by tdeck »

xiphias2 wrote: post #16
tdeck wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did he happen to get that antibody test?

A nurse came to his apartment to take the test (I payed for it)

That's cool! I had no idea those were available to the general public.

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

#54

Post by standardUser »

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

I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection...

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vacci....

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

#55

Post by xiphias2 »

azinman2 wrote: post #37
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.

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have protection. The antibody tests only look For one thing, but the body has many mechanisms of protection from the vaccine. That is one of the reasons why they’re not suggested to be used for the general population.

I know that it doesn't mean that he isn't protected, but I didn't find data on the protection against severe covid disease with the conditional probability of spike specific antibody test being negative after being properly vaccinated. Instead of just guidance I would like to see data.

Anyways that's why there are specific, slower test that can test his protection against specific virus mutations.

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

#56

Post by dunnevens »

My partner is the recipient of an organ transplant and is on anti-rejection meds. She's already had both shots of Pfizer. So we're following the research closely. Researchers are beginning to look at how the vaccine works in the immunosuppressed. The initial results aren't great. In one study[1], 46% didn't have any antibodies after both shots. 39% had antibodies only after the second shot. Only 15% received antibodies after the first shot.

I know this research is still in early stages and the initial sample size was relatively small. And T-cell responses were not measured. There's a decent chance the situation isn't as bad as it initially seems. But it's still discouraging.

[1] Antibody Response to 2-Dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Series in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779852

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

#57

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

standardUser wrote: post #54
verdverm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection... https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vacci... .

from your citation:

> while this study evaluated vaccine effectiveness against infection, including infections that did not result in symptoms.

and also:

> The study demonstrates that these two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections.

You'll note that this implies a somewhat different definition of "infection" than the one I think you're reaching for.

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

#58

Post by timr »

anamexis wrote: post #50
timr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP asked a simple question that requires no definitional equivocation. You are complicating the question unnecessarily. The question is: will the virus become endemic. The simple answer is "yes", because it is already endemic : it has multiple mammalian reservoirs, is found in every country on earth, and is ubiquitous in the human population. It is endemic. Theories about severity, treatment, etc., are completely…

And the second half of the question is "and be one of the common colds," which is exactly what GP was responding to..

Which is obviously a colloquialism, and has nothing to do with the meaning of the question.

Will the virus become endemic and be a common illness? Yes.

Focusing on the "common cold" is a way of making the question about severity, which is clearly not the intent.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #58
anamexis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the second half of the question is "and be one of the common colds," which is exactly what GP was responding to..

Which is obviously a colloquialism, and has nothing to do with the meaning of the question. Will the virus become endemic and be a common illness? Yes. Focusing on the "common cold" is a way of making the question about severity , which is clearly not the intent.

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by anamexis »

timr wrote: post #58
anamexis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the second half of the question is "and be one of the common colds," which is exactly what GP was responding to..

Which is obviously a colloquialism, and has nothing to do with the meaning of the question. Will the virus become endemic and be a common illness? Yes. Focusing on the "common cold" is a way of making the question about severity , which is clearly not the intent.

That certainly is not clear to me, and in any case not reason to be dismissive and rude about a good answer.
Post reply on HN