Large Antibody Study Offers Hope For Virus Vaccine Efforts (apnews.com) 62
Antibodies that people make to fight the new coronavirus last for at least four months after diagnosis and do not fade quickly as some earlier reports suggested, scientists have found. From a report: Tuesday's report, from tests on more than 30,000 people in Iceland, is the most extensive work yet on the immune system's response to the virus over time, and is good news for efforts to develop vaccines. If a vaccine can spur production of long-lasting antibodies as natural infection seems to do, it gives hope that "immunity to this unpredictable and highly contagious virus may not be fleeting," scientists from Harvard University and the U.S. National Institutes of Health wrote in a commentary published with the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. One of the big mysteries of the pandemic is whether having had the coronavirus helps protect against future infection, and for how long. Some smaller studies previously suggested that antibodies may disappear quickly and that some people with few or no symptoms may not make many at all. The new study was done by Reykjavik-based deCODE Genetics, a subsidiary of the U.S. biotech company Amgen, with several hospitals, universities and health officials in Iceland. The country tested 15% of its population since late February, when its first COVID-19 cases were detected, giving a solid base for comparisons.
Antibodies are OK (Score:2)
If they are the right ones and not 'suboptimal' ADE.
Re: (Score:2)
They may be right for SARS-COV-2, but enable ADE for different strains -- which seems fairly unlikely to me. Coronaviruses can rarely take advantage of ADE but I'd be more concerned if it was a flavivirus. Anyway ADE is another reason why a rationally designed vaccine would be better than the nonsensically trying to create "natural herd immunity" in a population by allowing people to get infected with the virus. A vaccine design can try to avoid using target epitopes that might be susceptible to ADE at the
Wonderful! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Finally some good news.
So you missed the good news yesterday that we might have an FDA approved vaccine on November 1st?
Re: (Score:2)
Rate of testing is somewhat down, almost 30% since the peak, so that 50% reduction probably isn't truly 50%. Also they are now pushing NOT testing people without symptoms, so we'll see how long that reduction holds up before asymptomatic spread increases, resulting in more symptomatic cases too.
So in summary, I wouldn't yet say it's good news on that front.
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths are following the same curve as new daily cases. If daily cases aren't actually down, there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people actively conspiring to hide a hell of a lot of bodies.
I really think that whoever thinks this shit up needs to work on improving their propaganda skills.
Re: (Score:3)
I really think that whoever thinks this shit up needs to work on improving their propaganda skills.
You don't need much skill when the people you need to convince are marinated in confirmation bias and are desperate for ANYTHING to keep the illusion alive.
Plus, there is the age-old adage... Figures never lie, but liars figure. If it takes time to explain how your figures make sense over common sense interpretation of the facts, you have a problem with the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes time to explain how your figures make sense over common sense interpretation of the facts, you have a problem with the truth.
Or perhaps you just have a simple mind. We went through this already in June,
1) cases are going down, deaths are going down.
2) cases flatten, deaths are still going down
3) cases start going up, deaths continue going down
4) cases going up significantly, deaths continue going down
At this point, we hear no end of the "no, cases aren't going up. That's just increased testing. Look at the deaths, they're going down, that proves it cases aren't really going up". So right here, you need to explain to someone why d
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths are following the same curve as new daily cases. If daily cases aren't actually down, there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people actively conspiring to hide a hell of a lot of bodies.
I really think that whoever thinks this shit up needs to work on improving their propaganda skills.
Or you might just need to work on your reading comprehension skills, because I never claimed that cases were going up. I said they weren't going down as fast as the numbers make it appear. It's pretty clear a 30% reduction in testing wouldn't result in a 50% reduction in cases (unless you were really good at intentionally not testing only the people who actually are infected, but I never claimed that to be the case), therefore there is a reduction. Its just smaller than you think.
I then also said it's worri
Re: (Score:2)
Grasping at straws to keep the illusion alive I see.. :)
Look, it was plainly obvious that COVID infection rates would decline after they peaked, the only question we didn't have the answer to was when it would peak. We now know, it was the middle of July. Since then, things have been on a downhill run for case numbers. This trend is likely to continue on through the election and into the late fall at least.
Where I expect a jump in active case rates as school starts, I'm hoping that with masks and social
Re:Wonderful! (Score:5, Insightful)
Schools have already started in a lot of places, and it wasn't good news. A whopping 2% of UGA students caught COVID-19 within the first week, compared with on the order of a tenth of a percent for the state as a whole during the same time period. That actually means UGA by itself was about 6% of the state's total coronavirus cases.
Masks help for occasional casual contact. When you have fifty people crammed into a lecture hall for an hour or more, not so much. Add to that young people's tendency to ignore the rules, and colleges with on-campus housing are basically a prescription for a significant case spike.
And even with masks, sticking K–12 students in a room together for six hours at a time is risky because of the duration involved.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a fairly reasonable understanding of things, so I would ask you to go back and reread my post. I never said cases weren't going down. I said they weren't going down as much as the numbers would indicate, and at the same time we're making a bad decision that could undo all that.
So no, I'm not grasping at straws. I'm just not counting my chickens before they hatch..."I wouldn't yet say it's good news on that front."
Re: (Score:1)
Finally some good news.
So you missed the good news yesterday that we might have an FDA approved vaccine on November 1st?
Will it be bleach based?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Enhanced with UV Light.
Applied by anal probing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been staring at an asshole in the White House for so long now that I think I may be an anal probe.
Only if you shoot concentrated UV rays from your eyes when you take off your sunglasses.
Re:Wonderful! (Score:4, Insightful)
How convenient this should be announced 60 days before the next election. Without any evidence to substantiate the claim.
But the really good news is based on current models, if people stop wearing masks, we could potentially see 3,000 dead each day [cnn.com]. This would mean over 400,000 dead by the new year. If we want to go the herd immunity route, over 600,000 might die in the same time.
Possibly even better news, the Midwest is seeing a spike in cases [nationalreview.com]. We've already seen the first death related to Sturgis [thehill.com] so more are bound to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
But the really good news is based on current models, if people stop wearing masks, we could potentially see 3,000 dead each day [cnn.com].
If people stop wearing masks? Why all of the sudden would people stop wearing masks? If we maintain mask/distancing compliance that we currently have, daily deaths will likely continue to drop from the current ~1,100 - 1,200 per day. Trotting out some unlikely scenario to try and scare people is nothing but fear-mongering.
We've already seen the first death related to Sturgis [thehill.com] so more are bound to happen.
So almost 500,000 people attended a 10 day motorcycle rally where it has been reported that few wore masks...and there's less than 300 known cases and one dead from COVID? Those number
Re: (Score:1)
Did you see the announcement that only 6% of those they're claiming are covid-19 deaths are actually from just covid-19? So this moves it right into the seasonal flu category. All the others were going to die anyway - old, had cancer, etc. So this is purely political by the left.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While it is good news, I wouldn't be dancing unmasked in the street. These things take time, even with the accelerated interest in finding a vaccine, it will take a while before we can get our shots.
Keep Masked in public.
Keep Distance from other people in public
Wash your hands regularly
Avoid extraneous travel more than you need
Don't go on a retard rant on how your rights are infringed because you need to wear a mask to a grocery store. Insult or abuse people who want you, others and themselves to keep saf
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... but has also infected a large percentage of the population asymptomatically.
Yeah. At *least* three percent, and maybe even four! And in places chasing after herd immunity, it is almost *double* that! We're all saved!
[redacted swearing]
Not good news for me! (Score:3)
I thought I had caught Covid-19 (I sure got plenty sick with very high fever, and so did everybody in the household, it was also short-lasting and we all had terrible coughs for weeks afterward). After 4 months I had an antibody test and it came back negative. That was bad news, sounds like I did not have it and thus could still get it. Then the news started to arrive that the antibodies disappear in a short time. That was good news because it meant I could have had it. Now this is saying that is not true a
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible that both things are true: The antibodies you were tested for had faded away after a couple of months, but the antibodies this study looked for (and you weren't tested for) stay around longer. Most of the widely available antibody tests so far have looked at only one type of antibody, and those tests were verified using blood taken from patients a couple of weeks after infection when that particular type of antibody was at its peak concentration. This study appears to use a set of six
Antibody tests are best taken after 3 weeks (Score:2)
Sensitivity drops after that. Plus they are designed for vein blood not fingerprick. And they vary in quality and also which protein sequence they test for.
Negative results don't generally mean a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a vein blood test. But you are right, to be honest I am pretty certain I got it, and that if I did it is extremely likely I am immune to it. The virus is not much different from others that the immune response to is well known and works. Just that I was rather disappointed that the antibody test did not show it.
Here in Russia (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you offer not one single word of rebuttal for any of it.
It's like you have none, but felt the needs to call someone a name anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he rebut laughably factually incorrect numbers lain out in bad faith? Nobody takes you people seriously.
Guise, your chances of dying from jumping out of this plane without a parachute are only like 1 in 100 million or so since it happens so rarely that people just die from jumping out of a plane without a parachute, so why not give it a try? No, really!
Fucking tards.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you offer not one single word of rebuttal for any of it.
It's like you have none, but felt the needs to call someone a name anyway.
Because those numbers are completely illogical based on a few seconds of math. If the risk of death is 1 in 19.1 million, you would expect approximately 20 deaths in the United States (population ~350 million). That's off by 4 orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your homework for today is to figure out what about this statement doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The human body has more than just antibodies to fight viruses. You can have immunity long after antibodies have faded.
Re: (Score:2)
especially as the immune system has memory cells that remember when and how to make them.
Re: (Score:2)
The antibodies will still work with a lot of mutations. The mutation has to actually change the part the antibody recognizes. Also it seems like the effective antibodies attach to the portions of the virus used to breach cells, so a mutation that makes the antibody not work will also likely stop the virus from working too.
no surprise (Score:3)
This class of viruses has been around for about 50 million years (estimated). So, the VERY FIRST HUMAN was fighting coronaviruses. By the time we showed up on the planet, our ancestor mammals had already been adapting to them for about 45 million years. Chew on that for a minute. The possibility that we somehow have no ability to fight off something in this viral class? Absolutely ZERO. Any individual that weak to coronaviruses was put put out to pasture a long, long time ago. Evolution is brutal and effective.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: no surprise (Score:3)
Not a permanent response, but good (Score:2)
Although this is good news, here's the actual finding:
"In a subgroup who tested positive, further testing found that antibodies rose for two months after their infection initially was diagnosed and then plateaued and remained stable for four months."
They are not claiming permanent protection, but even 6 months would be pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah if need be I could get a shot every 6 months. Yearly would be better, but 6 months is still within the realm of practicality. If it was a matter of "you're going to need to get a booster shot every 3-4 weeks" then that wasn't going to be effective.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't repeated exposure to the virus keep stimulating production of the antibodies?
Just because you've had it once and recovered, doesn't mean you'll never be exposed to the virus again - it's here to stay.
Doesn't matter. (Score:3)
This has become politicized so 3/4 of the population of the US will refuse the vaccine. Just got a super worried email from my mother about "OMG don't take the vaccine Trump rushed it through, we'll all die!!?!!". The usual anti-vaxxer tards also won't take it for the usual reasons so now you have a ton of people that will refuse to take it.
Personally, I will see what the data says about it, how it was tested, and historic safety data for similar types of vaccines. I won't refuse to take it simply because Orange Man Bad (which he literally is, I agree).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This has become politicized so 3/4 of the population of the US will refuse the vaccine. Just got a super worried email from my mother about "OMG don't take the vaccine Trump rushed it through, we'll all die!!?!!". The usual anti-vaxxer tards also won't take it for the usual reasons so now you have a ton of people that will refuse to take it.
It will be interesting to see if there are significantly different outcomes in those two groups. My suspicion is that the folks who think that it is being rushed will continue to stay locked down while the essential workers get the shot and beta test it for them, while the anti-vaxxers will refuse to take it and will go on with their lives, and a decent number of them will die from it.
Arguably, folks staying locked down longer and refusing the vaccine will actually be a good thing in terms of the case coun
The biggest seroprevalence test (Score:1)