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

71–77 of 77 posts

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

#71

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

standardUser wrote: post #69
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

GP said:

> Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system

You said:

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

and cited a link which stated that

> "... two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections."

So, the vaccines reduce the risk of being the virus being present, as well as the risk that the virus being present will cause symptoms (and by implications, the risk of severe symptoms).

Your link uses the term "infection" to cover both:

   * virus present, no symptoms
   * virus present, symptoms present
Many people (including GP) would tend to use "infection" to refer to a single condition: virus present.

So in that sense, GP is correct: the vaccine does not necessarily prevent the vaccine from being present in the body, but it is effective at reducing the risk that this will cause symptoms.

Of course, your link also implies that there a reduction in the risk that detectable virus will occur after exposure to the virus (which is great!). But my reading of the whole document suggested that the authors are keen to allow for the possibility that a fully vaccinated person may still have detectable viral load in their body. Ergo, it does not "prevent infection".

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

#72

Post by standardUser »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #71
standardUser wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

GP said: > Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system You said: > I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection... and cited a link which stated that > "... two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections." So, the vaccines reduce the…

If I smear some virus on you, you are not infected. An infection is defined by the growth of a pathogen, not its mere presence. When researchers look for an infection, as described in this study, they do not find an infection in most cases, hence the conclusion that infections are not taking hold and the vaccine is preventing an infection.

This entire argument feels pedantic and is based on the idea that the researchers are just playing fast and loose with words.

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

#73

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

tdeck wrote: post #3
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.

How did he happen to get that antibody test?

(not the person you asked) I opted to have one done (out of pocket) when I was doing an unrelated blood test, since I had gotten sick around the time COVID started to be an issue in my area. It's just a matter of checking an additional checkbox on the lab request (if you have the blood taken at a lab) or asking your doctor "hey, can you please also check box X" if the sample is taken at a doctor. Would have definitely stuck to the bare minimum of government-mandated precautions if it had been positive.

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

#74

Post by raarts »

belltaco wrote: post #42
christkv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not if a significant fraction refuses to get vaccinated.

I'm one of those people. I (like many) have already had Covid-19, and there is enough research suggesting that naturally acquired immunity protects as least as good (and likely better) than getting one of the vaccines.

Now the virus has become endemic, there is much less reason to get vaccinated. For the low-risk and healthy.

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

#75

Post by raarts »

standardUser wrote: post #43
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…

"It's come out the CDC is performing PCR testing for vaccinated individuals with a lower cycle count than for the unvaccinated." Do you have anything to back up this conspiracy theory? I'm also wondering how many of the ~1 million tests per day are being performed by the CDC itself?

I think he might refer to this document [1]

On your second point, this is a recommendation for all tests, nor just the ones performed by the CDC (do they test themselves?)

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-...

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

#76

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

standardUser wrote: post #72
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP said: > Vaccines don't prevent infection, they reduce severity by training the body's immune system You said: > I don't know where this misinformation came from, but it is absolutely false. COVID vaccines have been shown to prevent infection... and cited a link which stated that > "... two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections." So, the vaccines reduce the…

If I smear some virus on you, you are not infected. An infection is defined by the growth of a pathogen, not its mere presence. When researchers look for an infection, as described in this study, they do not find an infection in most cases, hence the conclusion that infections are not taking hold and the vaccine is preventing an infection. This entire argument feels pedantic and is based on the idea that the research…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection#Classification

"The word infection can denote any presence of a particular pathogen at all (no matter how little) but also is often used in a sense implying a clinically apparent infection (in other words, a case of infectious disease).This fact occasionally creates some ambiguity or prompts some usage discussion; to get around this it is common for health professionals to speak of colonization (rather than infection) when they mean that some of the pathogens are present but that no clinically apparent infection (no disease) is present. "

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

#77

Post by timka »

dragonwriter wrote: post #68
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.

Exactly! You're on the right track.

It also has something to do with what A means in ADE. To make long story short next questions you should ask are:

  * what antibody classification systems exists, which one is used and why?
  * what's the difference between non-cyclic (natural smallpox, plague, measles) and cyclic (HIV, T-cell leukemia, serum hepatitis, herpes)?
  * what does ID have to do with the IFNγR1 gene?
https://doi.org/10.35825/2587-5728-2020-4-3-338-373
Post reply on HN