Antibody study suggests more lasting ... - British Lung Foun...

British Lung Foundation

46,642 members55,061 posts

Antibody study suggests more lasting immunity against COVID than believed.

2greys
2greys

In a finding that should encourage scientists who are racing to develop coronavirus vaccines, a new study out of Iceland suggests that immunity to the disease may not be as fleeting as first thought.

Among 30,000 Icelandic residents who were tested for antibodies to COVID-19, researchers discovered the antibodies stayed in people's systems for at least four months, the study found.

Of those who tested positive for the coronavirus, 487 had received multiple antibody tests. In the first two months after a patient was diagnosed, the antibodies that can confer immunity rose significantly. For the next two months, antibody levels remained stable, according to the study published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

consumer.healthday.com/infe...

The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
44 Replies
oldestnewest

The claim of Anti-body as a measure of immunity is illogical.

First, they are not specific to the COVID-19. An antibody bound to the surface and the surface protein is common to all coronaviruses, for example, the common flu coronavirus. As a result, the prevalence studies highlight the same prevalence of COVID-19 in the urban and rural areas which indicates that they cannot differentiate a family of coronaviruses.

The cross-reactivity with normal flu coronavirus is part of the reason that the antibody test cannot be used even for COVID-19 diagnostic purposes.

There is no clear mechanism on how they confer protection. The antibody is coined in the era that toxin is said to cause the disease. Chemicals can be neutralized by antibody but a pathogen cannot be just neutralized, they got to be killed and it is still not clear how an antibody does that.

Synthesizing antibody is not that difficult and if it works against COVID-19 by this time our stores will be filled with it.

Finally, the T cell arm of the immunity which is at work from infection to cancer has a predominant role than an antibody.

In essence, don't make any rash decisions based on antibody study.

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

Influenza (the flu) and COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus that's led to the current pandemic, are both infectious respiratory illnesses. Although the symptoms of COVID-19 and the flu can look similar, the two illnesses are caused by different viruses.

hopkinsmedicine.org/health/...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortho...

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

Flu is just a symptom caused by several viruses and the influenza virus is one of them.

The other viruses are

Parainfluenza viruses

Enteroviruses

Rhinoviruses

Human metapneumoviruses

Coronaviruses

Adenoviruses

There are several families of coronaviruses

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coron...

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

Influenza virus is just that, influenza virus, it is not a coronavirus as you stated. I have given you the links.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

All Flu is not caused by influenza viruses

Read a bit

David L. Heymann-Control Of Communicable Diseases Manual 18th Edition-American Public Health Association (2004)

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

Oh come on, Flu is just short for Influenza, which has to be caused by the Influenza virus by definition. If it is not caused by the Influenza virus it cannot be Flu, it has to be something else. B.T.W. your link to the Wiki article has no mention of Influenza at all.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

If you prefer not to hear others and ready to wallow in ignorance, it's up to you.

I appreciate your effort for the welfare of the community by bringing the recent devlopments. But try to hear from others too.

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

Just quoting a book that is not accessible online does not constitute as a supporting link as per forum rules. I am not about to purchase a book, spend hours reading it to find that you are misquoting it. Give a link please, as per the rules. Unlike you I always give at least one of the supporting links often the research papers as well, when they are not behind a paywall.

stones93
stones93 in reply to 2greys

He's right about the T cells though....more important than antibodies.

2greys
2greys in reply to stones93

Which I have also stated many times myself for a while, but that is not what is in question.

stones93
stones93 in reply to Maverick2

sorry, 'flu' is caused by the influenza virus. The virus may mutate a little from year to year, but all 'flu' is caused by the influenza virus.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to stones93

The name Flu is a generic name for symptoms runny nose, cough and fever. In the 1900 s it is thought to be caused by bacteria Haemophilus influenza. Around 1930, it was found that separate viruses cause similar symptoms thus derived the name influenza taken from Hemophilus influenza. Later it was found several viruses causes similar symptoms and clubbed as Influenza-like illness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influ...

The name convention started earlier but changing it will cause much confusion. In addition, it will affect the influenza vaccine business.

The streptococcus Pneumonia named so, as it was thought to be the sole cause of pneumonia. They extended the name to Chlamydia pneumoniae. Later several bacteria found to be the cause of pneumonia and no longer use pneumoniae such as streptococcus Aerus and Pseudomonas. now we know even viral infection causes Pneumoniae.

The symptoms like flu and pneumonia are due to immune response and not pathogen specific.

Much of the infectious disease research is done before 1960. 1960 to 2020 is the dark period for infectious disease research (except HIV). The struggle with COVID-19 is mainly due to ignoring infectious disease research for more than 50 years.

Ergendl
Ergendl in reply to Maverick2

As a virus is not a living organism, it cannot be killed. It can be neutralised or destroyed. That's why antiviral solutions are needed, and why antibiotics don't work and only some antibacterial products are effective against viruses.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to Ergendl

True, they are just molecule and most of the product just deactivates by making the molecule lose its integrity but not neutralization. However, after some time the molecules may regain their integrity. Some of the Viral vaccines are in fact deactivated by alcohol but become activated in the body.

But the antibody theory is general and applicable to bacteria, fungi, and protozoa that are needed to be killed, and the mechanism is not yet established even after 200 years.

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

The virus is not a molecule perse, it is a single strand of RNA. It is not alive so it cannot be killed , it can however be neutralised or destroyed as stated by Ergendl .

"Other virus like particles called prions are composed primarily of a protein tightly complexed with a small nucleic acid molecule."

britannica.com/science/virus

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

732G is the new SOC used in midrange phones made by snapdragon

dopetechnews.com/Comparison...

stones93
stones93 in reply to 2greys

There is still scientific debate about whether a virus can be classed as a living organism or not. The jury is out. Science is ever evolving by its very nature. A virus is certainly parasitic, perhaps a very sophisticated parasite.

Do hope 2 Grey's that if exposed to this bug we develop some kind of immunity if we get infected again.

Am not an expert in immune responses but if we have some immune response post exposure I would find that comforting.

Trying to unravel the intricacies of all the covid news leaves me baffled and in need of a strong cuppa tea.

Stay well.

2greys
2greys in reply to ninelives

Sharon and I had it mid April. She works in a nursing home as a senior carer, it was rife and over 15 residents died from it, another 20 survived over a period of 4 1/2 months. She comes into close contact, bathing and feeding them. In all that time neither of us has become ill again.

The evidence speaks for itself. We have to be immune and must still be today, with two residents currently positive. I am totally convinced about immunity and it has lasted for 4 1/2 months so far.

Many of the Corona virus Genomes have been mapped. Along with other viruses. In many nations the covid19 genome as been used to track both the spread and source of differing strains of the Covid 19 virus.

directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/...

To suggest that we cannot differentiate between viruses of the same family is not correct as each virus even within the same family produces specific antigens. The reagents used within the tests are also virus specific. Tests would be pointless otherwise.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to Badbessie

The antigen test is different from the antibody test. PCR study the DNA or RNA thus can differentiate the various coronavirus. An antigen test only studies the virus surface (spike protein common to various coronaviruses), thus it is incapable to differentiate between very closely related viruses. The antibody test only studies the molecule (Antibody) produced by our own immune system only study the surface of the virus( else, it will not bound to the surface), not the DNA or RNA.

As long as there is no previous Coronavirus exposure (other than COVID-19), all tests will produce good results. When there are previous coronaviruses that cause the common cold is prevalent in the society the antigen and antibody test struggles.

The TB antigen Tuberculin protein is used to detect TB. However, it cannot differentiate the Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, Non-Tuberculosis Mycobacterium, or the BCG vaccine.

Most of our hospital treat without knowing what is the cause of most of our infection. Unless it is a severe recurrent infection, they will not do any of these tests because of low specificity of these tests thus not worth it.

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Maverick2

immunology.org/news/covid-1...

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Badbessie

thelancet.com/journals/lanr...

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Badbessie

thelancet.com/journals/lanr...

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Badbessie

sciencemag.org/news/2020/03...

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Badbessie

edition.cnn.com/2020/08/03/...

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to Badbessie

At least tell me what you understood from the reading. Always try to discuss with logic than throwing links. I can do a google search and throw a thousand links but at the end of the we got to learn some thing from each other.

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Maverick2

The test use genetic markers specific to the virus nor just the virus group. Please give a link to your evidence that is peer reviewed. Stating that the tests pick up all Corona viruses not just Covid.

sciencemediacentre.org/expe...

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to Badbessie

The genetic marker reads DNA and RNA i.e the PCR test. antigen test and antibody test does not read the genetic marker.

"PCR test has a 66.7% detection rate within the first week, whilst the antibody test has a lower 38.3% detection rate"

where does the discrepancy arise?

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Maverick2

I asked where you get your data. The basic evidence for your statement. Please provide a reference.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to Badbessie

My intention is to provoke thought.

If you ask anything to a scientist the answer will be "what is the logic behind it?"

because he wants to learn.

if you ask anything to the politician the answer will be "what proof do you have"

because he wants to be seen as knowledgable.

Badbessie
Badbessie in reply to Maverick2

But you provide no rational. I worked in medicine for many years and one of the many things I did learn was that there are no absolutes. As knowledge progresses today's facts are tomorrow's as beens. To ask for a rational or proof of concept is a basic part of science.

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

That is no excuse for not providing just one valid link from yourself to support your statements, again, as per the forum rules.

You are stating that as an absolute, which is wrong. Again you make a wild statement which is unsupported by a link.

This what the CDC says:

"If you test positive

A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses). Note: Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2."

cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc...

A 'chance' is not the same as an absolute fact. After all there is a 'chance' of you being hit by a #13 bus today.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

How does a chance arise and on what logic it can change to absolute fact? If you want to learn you can ask questions?

Reply to 2greys et al. I have watched this debate, if it can be called that, with interest. Are any of you microbiologists ? If not then you are laypeople in this field just like myself, albeit that you may be graduates in other scientific fields, again just like myself. There appears to be much confusion in your 'debate' and some of the statements made are, at the very least,

questionable.

Is it not true that it is generally accepted within science ( even if it is questioned by some) that viruses are living microbes that replicate through host cell invasion and destruction ? In this sense unlike protein Prions that are believed to cause CJD for example.

Is it not true that coronavirus is a general descriptive term for a number of viruses including Cov2 Sars that have the appearance of a corona under electron microscopy? Covid 19 is the illness caused by this particular Cov2 virus.

Please start being constructive with each other. There is enough confusion out there already without it being added to. Goodness knows that we have a big enough problem.

The question of the nature and effect of influenza does give rise to a thought. Is anyone making a study of any, if any, correlation between the incidence and effect of Covid19 on those that have been pre vaccinated for the seasonal strains of influenza virus ? I may be wrong but I understand that the take up of the yearly 'flu jab' is about 60% of those that qualify for it.

2greys
2greys in reply to CYMROBOY

Are viruses alive?

"Not really, although it depends on what your definition of "alive" is, two infectious disease doctors told Live Science.

Living beings, such as plants and animals, contain cellular machinery that allows them to self-replicate. In contrast, viruses are free forms of DNA or RNA that can't replicate on their own."

livescience.com/58018-are-v...

The so called "debate" started ,as seen, from an unsubstantiated statement that Influenza is a Coronavirus! It has progressed with more unsubstantiated statements, the poster has not given one link to support any of the wild claims being made. The forum rules state that they have to be accompanied by supporting links. If the supporting links were supplied then yes, it would be constructive, but sadly they are not forthcoming. You cannot make a construction without the building blocks.

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

Don't misquote others. Nobody here claimed that the influenza virus is a coronavirus. There are many other respiratory coronavirus infections whose antibody can mess up the COVID-19 result.

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

Your very own words! Your first reply, in full!!!!!

"The claim of Anti-body as a measure of immunity is illogical.

First, they are not specific to the COVID-19. An antibody bound to the surface and the surface protein is common to all coronaviruses, for example, the common flu coronavirus. As a result, the prevalence studies highlight the same prevalence of COVID-19 in the urban and rural areas which indicates that they cannot differentiate a family of coronaviruses.

The cross-reactivity with normal flu coronavirus is part of the reason that the antibody test cannot be used even for COVID-19 diagnostic purposes.

There is no clear mechanism on how they confer protection. The antibody is coined in the era that toxin is said to cause the disease. Chemicals can be neutralized by antibody but a pathogen cannot be just neutralized, they got to be killed and it is still not clear how an antibody does that.

Synthesizing antibody is not that difficult and if it works against COVID-19 by this time our stores will be filled with it.

Finally, the T cell arm of the immunity which is at work from infection to cancer has a predominant role than an antibody.

In essence, don't make any rash decisions based on antibody study."

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to 2greys

There is no influenza there. if you want further detail read the reply to stones

2greys
2greys in reply to Maverick2

"the common flu coronavirus" flu is short for Influenza.

Quote/

"Influenza, commonly known as "the flu", is an infectious disease caused by an influenza virus."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influ...

Maverick2
Maverick2 in reply to CYMROBOY

Already BCG vaccine is speculated to confer protection against Covid-19 to explain the low fatality rate of underdeveloped countries. If a bacteria can give protection against COVID-19 certainly the influenza vaccine can because coronavirus matches better with the influenza virus than TB bacteria.

if you look from another perspective, the influenza vaccine from this year cannot protect against the next year (different strain), it is difficult to envisage the influenza vaccine to confer protection against COVID-19.

Some trials are happening for BCG but I am not aware of any influenza vaccine trial.

if the influenza vaccine confers protection people are happy but scientists are screwed.

if the influenza vaccine does not confer protection people are screwed but scientists will be happy that their science is robust.

Are viruses alive ?

The rest of the Life Science article that you quote from has a theme that interwoven with a wonderful 'Janus' outlook. It relies heavily on the premise that all living things must be able to reproduce independently. The author is careful to conclude with an 'each way bet'. The article does not address the ability of viruses to 'mutate' in response to external stimuli. Not so inert after all ! We are at the building blocks of life here.

On the question of the influenza virus, I understand that it has a corona. Perhaps I'm wrong.

medicinenet.com/script/main...

hopkinsmedicine.org/news/ar...

Ultimately they are just like machines that imitate life. A super computer can emulate life, but it is not actually alive. Nobody has yet seen a "dead" virus, neither is there any proof that Corona virus can be "killed". You cannot kill a machine but you can destroy it. One day machines might be self replicating, will that make them alive.

The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.

You may also like...