Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

UK Study Finds Evidence of Waning Antibody Immunity To COVID-19 Over Time (reuters.com) 94

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Antibodies against the novel coronavirus declined rapidly in the British population during the summer, a study found on Tuesday, suggesting protection after infection may not be long lasting and raising the prospect of waning immunity in the community. From a report: Scientists at Imperial College London have tracked antibody levels in the British population following the first wave of COVID-19 infections in March and April. Their study found that antibody prevalence fell by a quarter, from 6% of the population around the end of June to just 4.4% in September. That raises the prospect of decreasing population immunity ahead of a second wave of infections in recent weeks that has forced local lockdowns and restrictions. Although immunity to the novel coronavirus is a complex and murky area, and may be assisted by T cells, as well as B cells that can stimulate the quick production of antibodies following re-exposure to the virus, the researchers said the experience of other coronaviruses suggested immunity might not be enduring.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Study Finds Evidence of Waning Antibody Immunity To COVID-19 Over Time More

UK Study Finds Evidence of Waning Antibody Immunity To COVID-19 Over Time

Comments Filter:

  • The viruses all move over to the continent because of Brexit.

  • Don't need anti-bodies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrL0G1C ( 867445 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @02:45PM (#60655322) Journal

    Like the article states, we don't necessarily need anti-bodies, they just stick around long enough to make sure the virus is gone but the other cells remember the virus and can produce new anti-bodies.

    I think the proof is in the pudding, there are only a handful of people in the world who've caught the virus twice and they likely caught a different strain each time, there's currently 2 strains now AFAIK. If our immune systems weren't remembering the virus then the number of people getting re-infected would be far higher.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slazzy ( 864185 )
      That's probably true. Even if it's not, maybe vulnerable population will want to get a Covid shot each year just like the flu shot...

      • Also, there are three types of antibodies involved.
        This study tested for IgM antibodies, which represent 5%-10% of the total antibodies, and are not the long-lasting type.

        The head of the study specifically said it's not surprising that IgM antibodies didn't last long - they generally don't.

    • I think the proof is in the pudding

      Wait, are you saying there's COVID-19 or antibodies in the pudding? Please reply quickly, I'm opening my pudding cup in less than ten minutes!

    • came here to say something along the same time. You are not supposed to keep making antibodies once a disease is finished. You hope that you sero convert to a long term storage mode so you can recall the antibodies later. It's kind of like a hash. the anigen becomes a key, and the body looks up the antibody response. It doen's just keep it on the shelf.

      • You are correct.. The production of Antibodies in the absence of the virus is generally not a good thing for the host. Sure, you want the rapid response, but you don't want to junk up the place with antibodies laying about.
    • Remember the untested millions? Stands to reason many were exposed and asymptomatic.
      Then they catch it again
      And mostly die

    • I think the proof is in the pudding, there are only a handful of people in the world who've caught the virus twice and they likely caught a different strain each time, there's currently 2 strains now AFAIK.

      At least six as of August. [sciencedaily.com] There's enough variation in the virus for the New Zealand government to use strain identification in contact tracing. [nzherald.co.nz]

      • Genetic variation does not mean a virus is recognized as different. most genetic variations do absolutely nothing to the recognizability and the functionality of a virus but does allow to trace back the history.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Maybe. Or maybe not. Without some proof, that is wishful thinking.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kbahey ( 102895 )

      Like the article states, we don't necessarily need anti-bodies, they just stick around long enough to make sure the virus is gone but the other cells remember the virus and can produce new anti-bodies.

      I think the proof is in the pudding, there are only a handful of people in the world who've caught the virus twice and they likely caught a different strain each time, there's currently 2 strains now AFAIK. If our immune systems weren't remembering the virus then the number of people getting re-infected would

    • Re:Don't need anti-bodies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @04:45PM (#60655784)

      I think the proof is in the pudding, there are only a handful of people in the world who've caught the virus twice and they likely caught a different strain each time, there's currently 2 strains now AFAIK.

      You're misrepresenting the data to get a wrong conclusion.

      We have no idea how many people caught the *same* strain twice because we don't have measurement techniques to tell unambiguously. We can't tell if they caught it a second time, or if it was just a lingering leftover from the first time.

      However if they catch a second strain then we have clear genetic sequencing which proves the second infection wasn't the same as the first. When a researcher discovers a second genetic strain in someone, then it's crystal clear unambiguous proof that the person was infected twice. That's why it makes scientific headlines under the topic "re-infection".

      We currently simply don't have data about how frequent re-infection from the same strain is. We haven't read reports of researchers doing the kind of investigation that would show this up. Therefore, you should specifically NOT treat this "absence of evidence" as any indication of how frequently re-infection happens.

    • Re:Don't need anti-bodies (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @05:00PM (#60655854) Homepage Journal

      The problem is that even if your body can make new antibodies and fight it off, in that time you can pass it on to other people. So just because you had it or had the vaccine doesn't mean you can take your mask off, at least until almost everyone else has been immunised.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        The problem is that even if your body can make new antibodies and fight it off, in that time you can pass it on to other people

        Are you sure about that? Because I've heard discussion to the contrary, it could be that having the 'memory cells' could be enough to prevent the virus from getting to a high enough viral load to infect other people.

        Remember with COVID-19 we don't start off being infective - that typically takes 5 to 7 days. 5-7 days is likely more than enough time for the body to mount enough of a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Exactly this. When memory B cells encounter an antigen they start dividing and transforming into plasma cells, a kind of white blood cell which generates new antibodies.

      There are also variety of Memory T cell types whose functions are obscure and incredibly complicated, but which help coordinate subsequent immune responses to the antigen.

      These cells last for decades. That doesn't mean that immune memory sufficient to mount a successful response to the pathogen necessarily lasts for decades, but sometimes i

    • The proof of the pudding is in the eating you WORD CRIMINAL!

      ( documentary [youtube.com] )

    • Yeah, but if that was in the headline it wouldn't garner enough clicks. That it creates unnecessary fear in the population is just a bonus.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        " That it creates unnecessary fear in the population is just a bonus."

        Just a bonus for who exactly? What business or precisely what department of gov't? I'm asking being statements like this are very Q-anon-ish. And they make s**t up.

  • Let me guess they tested more people. (Score:3)

    by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @02:47PM (#60655332)
    These studies if they do not continue to test the same population only use the same population induce an error that is hard to correct for. The finding of antibodies months after an infection is at the detection limit of any mass produced test. That is why they are not in common usage.

    Experience with other corona virus is that the mechanisms for long term immunity are unclear. We are dealing with the virus family of a large number of common colds that immunity is not assured, but resistance and quicker recovery are. The complications of the virus are what is unique, not the virus.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The complications of the virus are what is unique, not the virus.

      Indeed. If this had just the probability of complications the common cold comes with, probably nobody would even have noticed something was going on. On the level of the flu, we would have seen some elevated death numbers, but nothing like what we are seeing for this thing.

  • Is there any reason to give any time at all to 24/7 news outlets? The only thing they want to do is get my attention, then use it against me. No better than a snake oil salesman.

  • is that everybody should party their asses off with sick people all the time to build immunity after all?

    • The current administration seems to agree with that.

    • Re:So what you're saying in fact (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sesostris III ( 730910 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @03:11PM (#60655444)
      Some get ill enough to need critical hospital care in order to stay alive. If everyone is partying, then there might not be enough critical hospital care for all those that need it. If you happen to be one of the unfortunate ones to require critical hospital care but can't get it, then you might not stay alive.

      Acquiring immunity is really only useful if you're alive to enjoy the results. There is also the issue of 'long covid'. Again, the acquisition of immunity is probably best if there aren't any long-term issues resulting from the acquiring of it.

    • Re:So what you're saying in fact (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @03:56PM (#60655612)

      The problem is that death rates go through the roof once intensive care is not available for all bad cases anymore. With intensive care, survival changes are pretty good now. Any attempt at herd immunity will get those elevated death rates and hence is a very bad idea.

  • If you have in any way the possibility to do your work from home you should. Anything to just keep potential spreading down. This also includes closing borders and sending out foreign workers and tourists/visitors/relatives of foreign workers. This must be kept for at least over the winter. The less people travel long distances the more we can contain it, and the better we can understand the isolated cases.

  • I'm not sure why some people are panicking about this - we're already familiar with this scenario when it comes to the annual flu vaccine.

    I'm not crazy about having to remember to get a shot every 3-6 months, but it's also not the end of the world.

    • Re:The sky isn't falling (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @03:53PM (#60655592) Journal

      I'm not sure why some people are panicking about this - we're already familiar with this scenario when it comes to the annual flu vaccine.

      I'm not crazy about having to remember to get a shot every 3-6 months, but it's also not the end of the world.

      Only if you are in a highly developed country. Most of the world has a difficult time administering single dose vaccines. Annual vaccines for the flu are a luxury.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This is where the WHO can do a lot of good. The WHO has done a huge amount to get vaccines distributed to developing nations, and went as far as to completely eliminate smallpox.

        • The WHO has been able to eliminate smallpox because this project has been brought to life by the USSR and then the USA also started funding a large part of it in order not to look bad in comparison.

          But the USSR is long gone and the USA has quit the WHO thanks to a certain orange shitgibbon.

      • There certainly are places where moving vaccines is more than a challenge, but in all the large population centers which are the ones that matter here, it really isn't a problem even in developing countries. You don't need to vaccinate every last remote village to stop the global epidemic spread that is the current problem no 1, if you can get more than half of any large city vaccinated the epidemic in it will already die down to low level where it isn't that much of a catastrophe anymore. All the people's

        • There certainly are places where moving vaccines is more than a challenge, but in all the large population centers which are the ones that matter here, it really isn't a problem even in developing countries

          It really depends on the vaccine. Some need -70C [google.com]

          the vaccines proposed by Moderna and by the Pfizer/BioNTech partnership will need subzero storage and shipping ... as low at -70C

          A lot of countries just don't have the capability to widely distribute things at those temperatures on a large scale.

          • Maintaining cold chain in rural areas is a very real problem in developing world. But large cities, it's pretty trivial, even poorest countries can manage it just fine in large population centers. Take it this way, if a city has an international airport, then keeping vaccines at dry ice temps is trivial.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      You stipulate that there will be a vaccine that works well and continues to work well if you get it again a while later. Neither is necessarily the case. Also, these results are quite a different matter for countries that will have trouble financing or administering vaccinations.

      • While I don't disagree with your statement, nor mean to minimize the issues you mention - on each point this is analogous to the existing situation with flu vaccines. If people are going to raise these alarms about COVID vaccinations, they should already have been doing so for influenza vaccinations.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Not really. Influenza is not as deadly and does not come with a probability of long-term issues like this one. So the relevant numbers are quite different. Also, influenza comes with a long-term immunity to the same strain and even an effect on similar ones you have had or are vaccinated against. (That was the reason the Spanish Flu killed mostly young people: There was a similar flu a few decades earlier and older people had immunity.) The flue evades vaccine effectiveness by mutations, while for Covid, we

          • Influenza is not as deadly and does not come with a probability of long-term issues like this one.

            I didn't even remotely claim that it did.

            Also, influenza comes with a long-term immunity to the same strain and even an effect on similar ones you have had or are vaccinated against. (That was the reason the Spanish Flu killed mostly young people: There was a similar flu a few decades earlier and older people had immunity.)

            It's true that an actual influenza infection does confer some long-term immunity. However the flu vaccine does not seem to provide the same long-term benefit - its effectiveness against a given strain of flu decreases in less than a year. It's not just a question of genetic drift. There's a reason we should get flu shots every year, even if some or all of the components remain unchanged from one year to the next. I don't believe the H1N1 component has appreciably cha

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Influenza is not as deadly and does not come with a probability of long-term issues like this one.

              I didn't even remotely claim that it did.

              I did not claim you did, because you did not. I was just pointing out factors that differ. My apologies if that was not clear.

              I don't believe the H1N1 component has appreciably changed over the last 11 years, for instance.

              The H1N1 part is special. It is basically put into the regular Influenza vaccine as a "trojan horse" and the immunity it confers does indeed only keep for 2 years or so. I am not sure how long the other protection lasts, but regular Influenza strains differ from year to year, unlike H1N1. There is also the thing that while full protection is gone, you may still get benefits like a l

  • Because we gather herd immunity against the common cold or flu, right?

    • Those viruses are know to mutate quickly enough to become different strains within a few months to a season.
      For this reason, your Tcells do not recognize is and do not produce antibodies.

      This is not new and very well known science.

  • I think that the quarantine will not end soon, we need to adapt to the new conditions. I work for an international company that provides services for writing an essay, I am a writer here you can read my new article about information and technology taking into account the new global pandemic https://writingbros.com/essay-examples/information-science-and-technology/ [writingbros.com]information-science-and-technology / free examples are provided there. So, over the past four months, I have been overwhelmed with work, we receive

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close