Antibody levels highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic Covid • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by meepmorp » Sun, May 23, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

dunnevens wrote: post #56

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 antibodi…

I'm assuming the J&J/other viral vaccines are a no-go with the immunosupressants. Hopefully, additional mRNA boosters can improve the immune response.

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

#62

Post by gizmo686 » Sun, May 23, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

ed_balls wrote: post #32

christkv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

pretty much. This what happened with 7 cold viruses and 2* flu viruses. I don't think it's realistic to destroy the virus reservoirs. *not sure if these are the exact number I remember from the lecture.

There are 4 types of influenza, but only types A and B cause seasonal epidemics every year; and are what is targeted by the flu vaccine.

Type C can infect humans but is typically mild and has not yet caused a serious epidemic.

Type D is not known to infect humans at all.

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

#63

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 23, 2021, 5:55 AM UTC

anamexis wrote: post #60

timr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by timr » Sun, May 23, 2021, 5:57 AM UTC

anamexis wrote: post #60

timr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a digression to make an ideological argument about the severity of Covid, and imply that it cannot therefore be endemic.

A "severe" disease can indeed be endemic, and the "common cold" actually kills a substantial number of people every year. They're completely orthogonal concepts.

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

#65

Post by ralusek » Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:58 AM UTC

I hope a consequence of this is that we'll begin to treat antibody levels as an alternative proof of immunity to vaccine documentation. Vaccines are a means to an end, not an end themselves. If someone has the requisite antibody immunity from having had the virus, we shouldn't necessarily be vaccinating those people.

For one, there are people all around the world waiting for vaccines. If the antibody levels can be used as a general stand in for immunity, there are people that need the vaccines more than those who have the requisite antibodies.

Secondly, intentionally triggering an immune response isn't exactly good for you. The assumption is that a vaccine arrives at an immune response in a less harmful way than getting the infection itself...but for those who have had the infection (and demonstrated a sufficiently high antibody count), retriggering an immune response is subjecting a person to a needless secondary immune response.

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

#66

Post by Dma54rhs » Sun, May 23, 2021, 8:04 AM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #65

I hope a consequence of this is that we'll begin to treat antibody levels as an alternative proof of immunity to vaccine documentation. Vaccines are a means to an end, not an end themselves. If someone has the requisite antibody immunity from having had the virus, we shouldn't necessarily be vaccinating those people. For one, there are people all around the world waiting for vaccines. If the antibody levels can be us…

At least in EU that will be the case.

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

#67

Post by timka » Sun, May 23, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

In the 80s they achieved antibodies while working on a HIV vaccine. The vaccine still doesn't exist.

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

#68

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, May 23, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

timka wrote: post #67

In the 80s they achieved antibodies while working on a HIV vaccine. The vaccine still doesn't exist.

> In the 80s they achieved antibodies while working on a HIV vaccine.

The I in HIV and the ID in the name of the associated disease mean something important here.

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

#69

Post by standardUser » Sun, May 23, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #57

standardUser wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're trying to make a point, I'd ask you make it more clearly. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines prevent infection, as the literature makes clear. What exactly is not clear?

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

#70

Post by lamontcg » Sun, May 23, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

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…

We would have seen evidence of ADE by now. From convalescent plasma to naturally re-exposed and reinfected to the individuals vaccinated almost a year ago now.

And the vaccines target spike because there were concerns about ADE with vaccines against the SARS-CoV-1 nucleocapsid protein, but not spike.

Pfizer stimulates both CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells responses:

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/pfizer-reports-strong-...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20140533v...

And the stuff in there about IL-4 and IL-5 and "the absence of a potentially deleterious TH2 immune response" is all about "no signs of ADE".