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

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

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 426 posts

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

#231

Post by unethical_ban »

74d-fe6-2c6 wrote: post #179
unethical_ban wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguments against your case: * Outlets had previously been reporting that mild cases do not give enough immune response to be lasting * Variants might not be caught by the natural immune response, but the vaccines are showing to be pretty effective with them. * Many people also think it's selfish not to get the free flu vaccines each year, so it isn't surprising that after a pandemic where half a million Americans di…

> Surprise, you live in a society - and I don't say that sentence ironically. You should. Majority of Muricans is not even willing to pay into a communal health insurance. So much for the level of society. > That's why the fact that the vaccine is a sure shot That take is not scientific at all. There have been several issues reported with the vaccines.

Here you are, trying to say that Covid is less of a threat to yourself and others than the vaccine.

Very few reactions have occurred. If you're worried about it, also don't go outside, cross a street, or go swimming in any body of water.

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

#232

Post by beiller »

cylinder714 wrote: post #164
DennisP wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which vaccine did they use? The CDC says the strongest evidence for preventing spread is for the mRNA vaccines.

The vaccine produced by China's Sinopharm company: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinopharm+seychelles&t=fpas&ia=web

Not entirely accurate. From the top article in your search:

"Among the vaccinated population that has had two doses, 57 percent was given Sinopharm, while 43 percent was given AstraZeneca."

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

#233

Post by toolz »

mlyle wrote: post #230
toolz wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rare…

1st study says zero active virus beyond CT>32 and 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decreased to 8% active viruses

All of those numbers are below 40ct - if this doesn't convince you that 40ct is the wrong number I don't know what to say - you've provided zero evidence that 40ct is beneficial and try to downplay extremely high false positives shown in three studies when you go to 40ct

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

#234

Post by toolz »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #226
toolz wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Please cite your source that positives at >40ct can still be infectious since I've already provided evidence strongly disagreeing with your assertion here.

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

#235

Post by xref »

beagle3 wrote: post #213
zamalek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccines are effective against the spike protein, which is what makes SARS-CoV-2 so virulent. In reality, there are many ways skin that cat, and there's no guarantee that the body chose the spike protein. From the article: > most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 No matter how you slice it, you are playing 'Rona Roulette if you don't get vaccinated. The CDC also recommends g…

If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. The claims about superiority of vaccine induced immunity that I’ve seen all rely on antibody counts, and in the very short term that may very well be true - but the importance of T-cells is not sufficiently well characterized to say it with…

> If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity.

Where’s the research showing there is more effective immunity possible than the spike protein method of the vaccine?

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

#236

Post by mlyle »

toolz wrote: post #233
mlyle wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rare…

1st study says zero active virus beyond CT>32 and 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decreased to 8% active viruses All of those numbers are below 40ct - if this doesn't convince you that 40ct is the wrong number I don't know what to say - you've provided zero evidence that 40ct is beneficial and try to downplay extremely high false positives shown…

"Extremely high false positives"-- no, inability to culture from the specimens, which isn't the same thing as a false positive. Please stop conflating the two.

It's a sensitivity vs. specificity issue, as I've said before, and I'm willing to listen to arguments on those grounds.

As the studies you've cited show, the vast majority of positive samples become so before 30 cycles. Then there's these relatively few "weak positive" results, where the ability to culture live virus is less. There's not enough of these to explain the number of cases, deaths, or overall excess mortality (as you've attempted to say elsewhere here, and others have rightfully corrected you). And these results being considered a positive is arguably a good thing while the virus is very common, as I've attempted to explain to you.

> 2nd study shows 34ct is the cutoff for infectivity and that 2nd study also cites a 3rd study that ct>35 decreased to 8% active viruses

Yes, but "infective at the moment you took the test" is not a useful metric. You want more people to be positive than this, so you can A) contact trace people who were infectious immediately before, and B) get people who were just infected to stay home -before- they're infectious.

Of course, now that we're on a major downslope of cases, this tradeoff is changing...

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

#237

Post by blhack »

nednar wrote: post #48

If recovered people have longer term protection than vaccinated people (which is one possible interpretation of the headline's statement), would it make sense to first vaccinate someone and then expose them to the real virus, thereby generating the benefits with a much much lower risk or maybe even zero risk?

That will probably happen naturally. People tend to alter their behavior a lot after getting vaccinated.

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

#238

Post by koolba »

seren wrote: post #86

From my understanding if you had an mRNA vaccine, your body was only exposed to an artificial spike protein, so effectively you have spike specific antibodies. On the other hand, if you had a real infection by the virus, you likely have antibodies for the spike protein and other part of the virus like the shell. So from my layman understanding, the immunity should be more resistant to a mutation of the spike protein.…

What if you have the vaccine, and then get exposed to the actual virus? Would it be the best of all worlds as the existing antibodies would prevent a full on infection but your body would also learn more generalized attacks against the virus? Or would it not be enough exposure to warrant the latter?

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

#239

Post by dustinmoris »

anonymousDan wrote: post #16

As someone who had COVID 6 months ago and is currently awaiting the result of a PCR test I hope this is true!

Neither the vaccine nor a previous infection will prevent you from catching the virus again, but it will prevent you from falling ill which is all that really matters.

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

#240

Post by zdragnar »

seren wrote: post #86

From my understanding if you had an mRNA vaccine, your body was only exposed to an artificial spike protein, so effectively you have spike specific antibodies. On the other hand, if you had a real infection by the virus, you likely have antibodies for the spike protein and other part of the virus like the shell. So from my layman understanding, the immunity should be more resistant to a mutation of the spike protein.…

I'll admit to not understanding why, but "consensus" seems to be that the vaccine confers greater resistance to variants than does natural immunity- perhaps the natural immunity is over-fit to the one virus, whereas the spike is a necessary component to the whole family?

That said, I've also seen oft repeated that what you get is immunity*, aka resistance to the worst symptoms. Mild infections are still to be expected as possible, and Covid 19 will join the ranks of common-cold causing organisms.

Post reply on HN