New, good COVID news

[Halftime Hope]

Good indications of long-lived immunity in mild COVID illness patients; of note, the researchers are not sure if this will hold true in severe COVID patients due to immune damage in severe COVID.  

News article by WashU:  https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/good-news-mild-covid-19-induces-lasting-antibody-protection/  Peer-reviewed paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4_reference.pdf 

 

ETA:  If you don't go read the articles, it's not that the researchers are pessimistic about the severe cases, it's simply that 1) that group hasn't been studied, and 2) since severe cases are characterized by immune dysregulation, the researchers are not sure if what they found here will apply.  

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Halftime Hope

[Guest]

Wow, that would be great! Dh had a pretty mild case in March/April this year and I have wondered if his antibodies will last. So far, he is resistant to taking the vax. So I would be happy if his immunity lasts. 

[Fritz]

I know of a person who had a mild case of covid in April 2020 and still had antibodies in Feb. 2021. 

[itsheresomewhere]

3 hours ago, Fritz said:

I know of a person who had a mild case of covid in April 2020 and still had antibodies in Feb. 2021. 

Same here.  Her last antibody testing was in May and still has them. 

[Catwoman]

Thank you for posting this! I’m hoping not to get Covid at all, but this is great news for those who have had it — and hopefully for people who had asymptomatic cases that they never even realized they had, including kids!

[Halftime Hope]

3 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Thank you for posting this! I’m hoping not to get Covid at all, but this is great news for those who have had it — and hopefully for people who had asymptomatic cases that they never even realized they had, including kids!

Exactly.  This is the second or third similar report I've heard, but the first that looks at bone marrow cells.  

My opinion, based purely on intuition, is that there is a lot about this virus that is NOT a mystery.  I just have not understood how this could be a complete black box and interact with our bodies and our immune systems completely outside of known patterns. I'm hoping for all our sakes that time continues to affirm that conjecture.  

Edited June 5, 2021 by Halftime Hope

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

Exactly.  This is the second or third similar report I've heard, but the first that looks at bone marrow cells.  

My opinion, based purely on intuition, is that there is a lot about this virus that is NOT a mystery.  I just have not understood how this could be a complete black box and interact with our bodies and our immune systems completely outside of known patterns. I'm hoping for all our sakes that time continues to affirm that conjecture.  

I share your opinion. When people first began getting vaccinated, my belief was that “they” (The Powers That Be) *knew* it was not necessary for fully vaxxed people to continue to mask. I mean - that is the freakin point of vaccination; you are really unlikely to catch or spread the disease. 
 

I believe that was always known, but “they” knew they had to remove mask mandates slowly because once lifted, it’s really hard to reinstate them. 

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Quill said:

I share your opinion. When people first began getting vaccinated, my belief was that “they” (The Powers That Be) *knew* it was not necessary for fully vaxxed people to continue to mask. I mean - that is the freakin point of vaccination; you are really unlikely to catch or spread the disease. 

I really don’t think they knew about transmission until after a significant number of vaccines had been given. The trials looked at preventing serious illness/hospitalization/death, so they didn’t yet have enough evidence to say it reduced transmission until later studies. If it turned out the vaccine prevented serious disease, but people were still spreading it asymptomatically, continuing to mask would have been important. As it is, the vaccine doesn’t totally prevent transmission, but it reduces it significantly to the point where masks aren’t necessary if everyone is vaccinated. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I really don’t think they knew about transmission until after a significant number of vaccines had been given. The trials looked at preventing serious illness/hospitalization/death, so they didn’t yet have enough evidence to say it reduced transmission until later studies. If it turned out the vaccine prevented serious disease, but people were still spreading it asymptomatically, continuing to mask would have been important. As it is, the vaccine doesn’t totally prevent transmission, but it reduces it significantly to the point where masks aren’t necessary if everyone is vaccinated. 

Nah. 😚 I just don’t believe that was ever a serious issue. People who don’t get sick don’t spread a virus, because viral load plays an important role in transmission. Right??

Its not important whether I’m right about that or not because I have always been in favor of mask mandates and I don’t mind them at all. But just from a purely philosophical perspective, I think I’m right. 😉

[Danae]

13 minutes ago, Quill said:

I share your opinion. When people first began getting vaccinated, my belief was that “they” (The Powers That Be) *knew* it was not necessary for fully vaxxed people to continue to mask. I mean - that is the freakin point of vaccination; you are really unlikely to catch or spread the disease. 
 

I believe that was always known, but “they” knew they had to remove mask mandates slowly because once lifted, it’s really hard to reinstate them. 

I think they knew it was highly likely that vaccination would prevent catching and spreading the disease, but medical scientists aren't going to say it's so until they've tested for it.  

And science reporting is awful, so "we haven't yet tested whether vaccinated people can still spread Covid so we can't say that they don't" became "vaccination doesn't prevent you from spreading covid!"  

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Danae said:

I think they knew it was highly likely that vaccination would prevent catching and spreading the disease, but medical scientists aren't going to say it's so until they've tested for it.  

And science reporting is awful, so "we haven't yet tested whether vaccinated people can still spread Covid so we can't say that they don't" became "vaccination doesn't prevent you from spreading covid!"  

This. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Danae said:

I think they knew it was highly likely that vaccination would prevent catching and spreading the disease, but medical scientists aren't going to say it's so until they've tested for it.  

And science reporting is awful, so "we haven't yet tested whether vaccinated people can still spread Covid so we can't say that they don't" became "vaccination doesn't prevent you from spreading covid!"  

I don’t think that’s wrong, but I also think the considerations of social behavior were paramount so it was better to say, “Keep the masks on because we don’t know exactly yet,” even though, if they had to place a bet, they would have bet that fully vaxxed people don’t transmit covid. 

[KSera]

17 hours ago, Quill said:

I don’t think that’s wrong, but I also think the considerations of social behavior were paramount so it was better to say, “Keep the masks on because we don’t know exactly yet,” even though, if they had to place a bet, they would have bet that fully vaxxed people don’t transmit covid. 

I agree if they had to place a bet, they thought it was likely vaccinated people weren’t going to transmit Covid. But they can’t lift public health measures  in a pandemic based on a hunch that the research would eventually show something. I really do think it was necessary to wait for evidence rather than changing recommendations based on a guess. (And besides that, again, it isn’t true that fully vaccinated people don’t transmit Covid. They do so at a vastly lower rate, but the fact it’s not 100% illustrates why they really did need to wait and see how well that worked in the real world.)

[wathe]

49 minutes ago, KSera said:

I agree if they had to place a bet, they thought it was likely vaccinated people weren’t going to transmit Covid. But they can’t lift public health measures  in a pandemic based on a hunch that the research would eventually show something. I really do think it was necessary to wait for evidence rather than changing recommendations based on a guess. (And besides that, again, it isn’t true that fully vaccinated people don’t transmit Covid. They do so at a vastly lower rate, but the fact it’s not 100% illustrates why they really did need to wait and see how well that worked in the real world.)

Yes.  Because the cost of being wrong would have been very, very, high, and the cost of maintaining the status quo (continue masking) was relatively low.  Also, they did "bet" wrong against asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread being a thing, back in Feb/March 2020 when PPe was in short such supply and public health officials advised the public not to wear masks, and instead to stay home if symptomatic, to cover coughs and wash hands, based on experience with SARS not spreading when asymptotic/presymptomatic.  How wrong they were.  And how hard it was to recover from that, both from a pandemic out-of-control point of view, and a public trust point of view.