Muh Muh Muh My Corona (virus)

We'll see...

Ex-Harvard Medical School faculty member warns COVID-19 herd immunity is ‘wishful thinking'

 

Your articles are talking about antibodies. The emerging research, which I suppose you'll be surprised to know wasn't authored by a SECessionist football coach, has to do with memory T-cells. That's kinda how scientific progress unfolds, you know ... "previous decades of study" are placed in a narrower context, or are perhaps undone, by new science.

EDIT TO ADD: It's not a study, it's two ... one in Cell (which is regarded as perhaps the most impactful scientific outlet there is), one in Nature (which is regarded as almost as impactful).

 

Why couldn't they run something in Vaccine?

 

Conflicting studies are done all the time. It seems weekly there's some new study done on health benefits of drinking coffee or alcohol that's soon followed by a new study in how unhealthy it is to drink coffee or alcohol.

Could this study be Newton and an apple? Sure. I hope so.

Taken together with all the evidence of the surge in the South, complete with full counties having no available ICU beds, it's a little early to get up T-cells memory hopes, especially if, as BTE and others claim, the number of confirmed infections is tenfold under the actual number of infections. Because if that's the case, a bunch of people (like in the Fox News story I've posted twice) must have T-cells with shit memories.

 

Topic matter notwithstanding (best as I can tell Vaccine wouldn't be an appropriate target for those works), a paper published in Cell or Nature is 5, maybe 10 times more impactful than one in Vaccine.

 

Since @doctorquant can only describe articles and studies but not link, here's one:

Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies

 

VORMJ
Value Over Replacement Medical Journal

 

A good read on reinfection:

Why no one knows if you can catch COVID-19 twice

 

You seem to be laboring under the impression that I am advocating some position (forget masks! lemme have my riblets and my haircuts!). I am not. I am merely pointing out that emerging research, in HIGHLY creditable outlets, suggests that: A) memory T-cells may be the primary drivers of immunity to COVID-19; and therefore B) thresholds for herd immunity may be substantially lower than the generally referenced 60%-to-70% standard.

Also ... you want links? Here's your links ...

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls

Do I need to run down the CV's of all these authors?

 

No, I'm not.

Thanks! Better than reading descriptions of.

 

I suppose I should note for the record that I know nothing substantive about immunology. I rely on others’ interpretations of the implications of such works (and sometimes I rely on others’ interpretations of others’ interpretations).

 

This.

It's easy to point to a gap in testing early on as an indicator of an under count and declare if we just did what New York did we'd be closer to hers immunity. But many people died because of an overwhelmed system, do we want to repeat that to get the economy fully open? Do we know for sure how under counted this was to say how close we are to herd immunity? No. And declaring New York is close is predicated on the herd immunity threshold being much much less than 70 to 80 percent. And it discounts the fact that New Yorkers saw first hand what it did and shut things down hard and are obeying local directives. Floridians didn't see the effects up close and personal, by and large. Nor did Arizona. And they said I'm tired of this, let us go out. Masks be damned. Distancing be damned. Now they're seeing the results. Hospitals getting overwhelmed in Miami-Dade and Houston is terrifying. And an overwhelmed system means more people will die. Needlessly. That's the price of trying the New York model.

But, and I'm not being sarcastic here, there's a conversation to be had about what point would we reach herd immunity and would antibodies actually stick around to have a meaningful affect? How badly did we undercount and what is the true number? What is our immune memory going to be if antibodies disappear and someone gets it a second time? What are the long-term effects of getting this? Is that worth getting it the first time?

We won't be able to 100 percent prevent people from getting Covid and that was never the goal of shutting things down. It was to give us time to manage the spread, give hospitals breathing room and time to let this thing either slow down enough so we could deal with little fires or get a vaccine. A vaccine is likely too far off despite positive results. That weighed against carelessly throwing open the doors. South Korea seems to be a good model for how we could achieve short-term economic pain for long-term positive health. That against Florida, Arizona and Texas shouting "Leroy! Jenkins!" and costing people their lives.