Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime • Hacker News Board

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#221

Post by dada78641 » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

mantismd wrote: post #161

D13Fd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This position is selfish. Covid is very often asymptomatic but still spreads. There is no way you can know that you haven't had it again, haven't spread it to others, and won't continue to do so without a vaccine. And while it may be asymptomatic for you, you can still spread it to others who it will be very symptomatic for - including others who have been diligent and have taken the vaccine. You can kill people with…

Asymptotic transmission has been proven to be negligible and non-issue.

There's actually still a fair number of people who get their first COVID-19 infection and never develop any symptoms at all, although it's a lot less than the initial research indicated early on in the pandemic: https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jammi-2020-0030

But a much bigger problem is presymptomatic transmission, which is why this disease was able to spread so steadily. Aside from that, there are people with symptoms that are so minor they never even consider themselves sick (although hopefully today people are more vigilant about this).

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#222

Post by toolz » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:14 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #217

toolz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure where the disconnect is, because all of that seems highly reasonable to me. Yes, I'm saying people avoided preventative care because they were scared to go near hospitals - this is not a controversial topic, it's clear that is true. I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident. No, I…

> I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident. > No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get…

I think you may misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming covid doesn't go up and increase hospitalization - I'm simply saying there are a lot of false positives. Of course there are real cases that precede hospitalizations, but that correlation does nothing to show there aren't massive false positives. The more covid is spreading, the more real cases but also the more false positives. You need covid virus in the patient to test positive. A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient.

covid spread increases -> hospitalizations go up - we both agree on this point

covid spread increases -> false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals (we do know that other coronaviruses have cross immunity with cv19 so it's not uncommon to be asymptomatic due to preexisting immunity)

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#223

Post by yread » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #206

myth_drannon wrote: post #10

What happened in Manaus/Brazil(high re-infection rate even after the city reached herd immunity) shows that's not that simple and they clearly state it "though viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer"

As of today, there are only 84 confirmed cases of reinfection worldwide, with three deaths. https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t...

You've linked to an article from August 2020 when it was still very much hoped that reinfections are just a fluke - virus particles not cleaned from the system or something like that. We have better data now, that comes from different methods and agrees quite well:

"Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5).... among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7–62·8)"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

"A study of blood donors in the city of Manaus has found that 1 in 6 of those infected with the coronavirus were reinfected with the P.1 variant."

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353

"A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection,"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#224

Post by TMWNN » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

yread wrote: post #223

TMWNN wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of today, there are only 84 confirmed cases of reinfection worldwide, with three deaths. https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t...

You've linked to an article from August 2020 when it was still very much hoped that reinfections are just a fluke - virus particles not cleaned from the system or something like that. We have better data now, that comes from different methods and agrees quite well: "Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5).... among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection wa…

>You've linked to an article from August 2020

That's when the article was first published. As it states, it is updated twice a week. Look at the most recent entries.

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#225

Post by nickthemagicman » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

Radim wrote: post #216

skeeter2020 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> anecdotes aren't anthema to logic. THey're all that is required to disprove universally stated truths. So if some vax-denier says "healthly people can't get covid twice" your anecdote is good enough. The real problem is that despite all their talk of science and facts they're not going to be convinced. That's just window dressing for their wrong beliefs. The value of vaccines is for society as a whole but the majo…

> Something as simple as vacinne passports would probably do it. Let me fix it for you: " Something as simple as restricting the freedom of movement of healthy individuals who committed no crime, in violation of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would cause people with WRONG BELIEFS (sic!) to behave in ways that I like. Namely, I want them to give up control of their bodies for the greater soci…

Thank you for this. My feelings exactly. Corona has shown me how easy it is to create fanatics to enforce any crazy rules in a fascist dictatorship.

If we ever get a Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini in this country it will be truly scary how many people will happily follow the narrative and support hurting others who don't.

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#226

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #222

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident. > No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get…

I think you may misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming covid doesn't go up and increase hospitalization - I'm simply saying there are a lot of false positives. Of course there are real cases that precede hospitalizations, but that correlation does nothing to show there aren't massive false positives. The more covid is spreading, the more real cases but also the more false positives. You need covid virus in the pati…

> A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient. > false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals

Ok, so it sounds like you're making the argument that a patient, who has COVID in their system, but is asymptomatic and tests positive would be considered a false positive, even though they can still spread the virus?

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#227

Post by toolz » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:38 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #209

toolz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's a study showing above CT 32 not a single live virus was able to be cultured [1] - if this study accurately portrays reality then there's nothing resembling sanity with PCR CTs >40 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... (image from the study) https://i.imgur.com/AaZZIXM.png

People who are infected will not necessarily have a single live virus in a swab you collect. Yes, if you can't culture it, they probably are not infectious right now but that is a different distinction. You're also putting a whole lot of weight on a study with what, about 50 total positives? And of them, very few with a Ct of over 35.

do you know of a study that shows the opposite? Because I know of more studies that have similar findings.

here's one I found with a quick google (haven't read the study)

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.1c00166

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#228

Post by yread » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:38 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #224

yread wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've linked to an article from August 2020 when it was still very much hoped that reinfections are just a fluke - virus particles not cleaned from the system or something like that. We have better data now, that comes from different methods and agrees quite well: "Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5).... among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection wa…

>You've linked to an article from August 2020 That's when the article was first published. As it states, it is updated twice a week. Look at the most recent entries.

I see. I didn't study it much after checking that my mom (hospitalized twice 4 months apart) and our music teacher at school (3 months apart) were not listed there. They use a pretty strict measure for "confirmed" - a case study being published.

Care to comment on the studies I've linked?

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#229

Post by nickthemagicman » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:39 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #138

amarant wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still anecdotal, but my cousin's wife who is a nurse also had covid twice, both of them confirmed infections(as in, she tested positive), the second one was after she'd received her first shot(not sure which vaccine, but one of the 2-dose ones) I have no clue if they were different variants or what caused her to not be immune, or how unlucky she were(this might be exceedingly rare) but for me it's been a good an…

>> anecdotes aren't anthema to logic. THey're all that is required to disprove universally stated truths. So if some vax-denier says "healthly people can't get covid twice" your anecdote is good enough. The real problem is that despite all their talk of science and facts they're not going to be convinced. That's just window dressing for their wrong beliefs. The value of vaccines is for society as a whole but the majo…

There's a vast gulf between anti-vaxxers and people who just don't want to put a non FDA approved, untested substance in their body that was developed in a rush over 6 months with no manufacturer accountability for a virus that they're not vulnerable to.

It's a little disingenuous and black and white thinking of you to label them as the same.

It would be like me calling you a Covid fanatic and a member of a Covid cult. It's extreme caricature of your views.

Re: Had Covid? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

#230

Post by mlyle » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:50 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #227

mlyle wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are infected will not necessarily have a single live virus in a swab you collect. Yes, if you can't culture it, they probably are not infectious right now but that is a different distinction. You're also putting a whole lot of weight on a study with what, about 50 total positives? And of them, very few with a Ct of over 35.

do you know of a study that shows the opposite? Because I know of more studies that have similar findings. here's one I found with a quick google (haven't read the study) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.1c00166

Even your studies show a relatively low false positive rate with high numbers of cycles, and it's hoped that it increases sensitivity. No, we have no perfect data, because we have no perfect "infection test".

High sensitivity was very worthwhile early in the pandemic, when infection was common and the predictive value of a test with a somewhat higher false positive rate was still high. Now that COVID is becoming rarer, we should absolutely be reducing cycle counts. The target should be to keep >75% of positives with actual infection even as the underlying rate of the disease decreases. I think we've exceeded this threshold by a large margin thus far. If you have a cogent statistical argument that disagrees instead of handwaving about cycle counts, I'm willing to listen.