Nicholas A. Christakis Profile picture
Mar 19, 2020 44 tweets 16 min read Read on X
Let’s talk about what happens if you get COVID19 and recover. Are you immune to the disease? How long does the immunity last? And what does that mean for your life and for the public health and economy of our society? 1/
Probably as many as 40% of humans will be exposed to COVID19 over the next 2-3 years, judging from past pandemics. Not everyone will actually get it. Only some (probably <1.0%) of those who get it will die. The rest will recover. And, almost all of them will be immune. 2/
But we don’t know how long this immunity lasts. For some diseases (like polio or chickenpox), you are basically immune for the rest of your life. But for many others, that’s not the case. This is a complicated area in immunology. 3/
To sort this out, we need different kind of test than what many are discussing. Most ppl are discussing rRT-PCR assays that detect whether patients actually have coronavirus RNA. But that only works for people who are *currently* infected since it’s detecting SARS-CoV-2 itself 4/
Chinese scientists created tests for SARS-CoV-2 itself by early January: sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/l…. FWIW, this article notes the USA’s lag in testing even back then. (Incidentally, I envy protective equipment the Chinese scientists have in photo, but that’s for another thread.) 5/
If you have had COVID19 and no longer have symptoms, the existing test for viral RNA will tell you nothing. We need a different kind of test, called a “serological" test, that measures the *antibodies* that your own body makes against the virus. 6/
When humans get an infection, such as with SARS-Cov-2, we make antibodies to the components of the invader, especially against proteins on the viral surface. These antibodies can neutralize the virus and also protect us from getting infected again. 7/
A key target for human antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (such targets that our immune system attacks are known as the “antigens” of the pathogen) is the so-called “spike protein” on the virus surface (image via
@veeslerlab via @florian_krammer) 8/
The “serological” tests that we need for the virus detect human antibodies to such viral antigens. That is, they are a test of our response to the virus rather than of the presence of the virus. Scientists have perfected such tests for decades (eg, academic.oup.com/aje/article/91…). 9/
A first test for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 appeared as early as February 4 tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…. Both IgM & IgG (those are two different kinds of antibodies, with IgA being a third) were low or undetectable at day 0, but increased by day 5 in nearly all patients (N=16). 10/
Scientists in Singapore followed suit with an antibody test, also in February. sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/s… Many groups are racing to create such tests, which will have great commercial and clinical value. Our antibodies to the virus can be measured from ‘none’ to high levels. 11/
Incidentally, the way we will make a vaccine is to artificially stimulate our immunity by giving just (noninfectious!) parts of the virus to people, so that they create antibodies and then fight off any real infection, if later exposed. A vaccine is a simulated infection. 12/
We are lucky that SARS-CoV-2 is very “immunogenic,” which means that our immune system finds the virus very irritating and can mount a vigorous immune response against it. Damn virus. 13/
Developing serological tests should actually be a national and international priority. For many reasons. 14/
USA has opportunity to avoid mistakes with lack of RNA tests for acute phase of COVID19. We can make rapid progress and put into place distribution and insurance coverage. Test should be free (we need legislation), since we all benefit from immunity & knowing who is immune. 15/
There is a lot of research on such tests at present. Dr. Krammer explains a new paper from his group medrxiv.org/content/10.110… in this technical thread here: via @florian_krammer @VivianaSimonLab @Olli_Vapalahti @hepojoki @kedzierskalab et al 16/
The assays for SARS-CoV-2 in this paper medrxiv.org/content/10.110… by @florian_krammer et al are so sensitive that they can detect the virus as early as 3 days post symptom onset. 17/
The analyses by @florian_krammer et al also show something else: it looks like humans have, as we have been expecting, not encountered this virus before. We are all "immunologically naive.” We have no natural immunity. :-( 18/
This helps explain why the virus has spread so quickly and has become pandemic. There are few (if any) natural breakwaters in our species. 19/
We know from prior research that antibodies against viral antigens render us immune, but we do not yet know how long the immunity will last (to learn this will require follow-up time, and we are still only at the outset of the epidemic). 20/
Hence, the duration of immunity to a new coronavirus like SARS-CoV-2 is very difficult to know. We will just have to ‘wait and see' -- which is an expression that I find myself using so often with COVID19 and that is so frustrating for all of us. 21/
But we already can know, and do know, the *early* time course of immunity for COVID19, over the first 40 days since onset of illness. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… via @TheLancet 22/
“Seroconversion" in 173 patients appeared for Ab, IgM, & IgG in 11, 12, & 14 days. Presence of antibodies was <40% in first 7d & then rapidly increased to 100%, 94%, & 80% for Ab, IgM, & IgG by 15d. In contrast, viral RNA decreased from 67% before day 7 to 46% in days 15-39. 23/
We can, however, look at other coronaviruses and see what we can learn about the possible duration of immunity for COVID19, once we are further into the epidemic and have longer follow-up. We can guess based on past science. 24/
Here is a classic 1990 study of 15 volunteers who were *deliberately* infected with a *different* coronavirus squirted into their nose, with immunity monitored for a year. Immunity reached a maximum at 2 weeks. It had lapsed by a year later. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… .... 25/
Amazingly, 9 volunteers returned to lab to be ‘re-challenged’ by having virus squirted into their nose a second time! Although their antibody titers had declined, they still had some immunity, since only 6 of 9 became re-infected and none developed symptoms. So, that’s great! 26/
Alas, as an aside, the decline in titers also means that developing a vaccine for COVID19 may be very challenging, similar to the reasons we do not yet have a vaccine for the common cold (but that is the topic for another thread). 27/
Serological tests are important even in acute phase of COVID19 because tests for virus itself could be falsely negative (for many clinical & technical reasons, eg poor technique swabbing throat). Detecting antibodies to the virus offers us another way to spot the little devil 28/
As the epidemic proceeds, we will want to do serological tests (by drawing blood) on as many people as possible to identify people who have recovered and are highly likely to be immune. This should be a national priority. 29/
People who are known to be immune based on such serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 are no longer infectious (they basically cannot spread the virus), and they can return to work, school, etc. This is going to be especially valuable for health care workers. 30/
But here’s the thing: once you’re immune to COVID19, you can go about your business. Immune people can move about & help restore our economy. As number of such people rises, it will also confer "herd immunity" to our population, by blocking viral transmission, helping us all! 31/
Incidentally, if a person in a household is known to have had COVID based on the extant RNA test and is now recovered, they are a good choice of person to send out for errands, since they are also now immune. 32/
Serological tests are also important because they help determine true denominator of people who got infected & recovered without symptoms or minimal symptoms, which is crucial for computing COVID19 IFR (infection fatality ratio), as @mlipsitch notes: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/… 33/
When we have widespread serological testing of a representative sample of people, we will be able to compute numbers of people already exposed (and naturally immunized — ie, without a vaccine) to SARS-COV-2. We might find that the IFR is much lower than we have been fearing. 34/
Eventually, we could also even extract antibodies from humans who are immune (this is called ‘serum’ — and it’s like making a blood donation) and use it as a treatment for seriously ill people with COVID19 (this treatment can cause other problems, but that’s another story). 35/
A nice review of the biology of many possible strategies to treat COVID19, including ‘passive antibody transfer’ from one patient to another, using serum, is here: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… 36/
This topic is exploding on #COVIDtwitter right now. @mlipsitch @trvrb @florian_krammer @bimald @venkmurthy @jflier and others are also talking about it and are good sources of information. 37/
In this terrific thread by @PeterKolchinsky, also sent out March 19 by coincidence, you'll find an explanation of the likely feasibility of making a COVID19 vaccine. We already have vaccines for dog & cow coronaviruses, for example. Chances look good. 38/
New dystopian thought: a market will emerge over near term whereby employers will be willing to pay more to (and compete for) workers with serologically documented COVID19 immunity. This is a scary thought in very particular ethical ways that I’ll need to think more about. 39/
Here is how serological testing for COVID19, coupled with the somewhat creepy notion of “immunity certificates,” could actually help our economy get back on track. 40/
This thread nicely illustrates some difficulties w applying serological tests (or any tests) to large & low prevalence population. Even if test is very good, if disease is uncommon, false positives will overwhelm true positives. “PVP” will be low. /41
Still more information is now out regarding antibody (IgG) response in COVID19 and duration of humoral (antibody) immunity. Titers decline in most patients by 90 days, especially if they were only mildly ill. medrxiv.org/content/10.110… 42/
This study (showing decline in antibodies within 90 days) has implications for: 1) widespread serological testing to assess prevalence, 2) antibody protection against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2, and 3) likely durability of vaccine protection. medrxiv.org/content/10.110… 43/
However, long-term immunity is mediated primarily by cellular ('memory') immunity. To me, it still seems likely that recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection will set one up for milder or asymptomatic case on subsequent infection (see this classic study: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…) 44/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nicholas A. Christakis

Nicholas A. Christakis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NAChristakis

Dec 6, 2024
In work out in December 2024 in @SciReports, Matt Jones and I conduct experiments to study the role of leadership within factions of larger groups struggling to reach consensus on a contentious topic. 1/ Image
For groups to reach consensus, which is a common and crucial social task, constituent individuals must share information across network ties and make concessions to others people, trading off personal versus collective interests. 2/
Leadership is also important to group performance.

Good leaders delegate tasks so the group functions as a cohesive unit; act as information clearinghouses; wield authority to bring unruly members in line; and speed up decisions by executive action. 3/
Read 16 tweets
Nov 21, 2024
The bacteria in your gut depend on where you are in the social network.

And the microbes within us treat our social networks as the extended environment in which they thrive. They can spread from person to person.

New #HNL work out today in @Nature. 1/
"Gut microbiome strain-sharing within isolated village social networks" with @chocophlan, @JacksonPullman1, @mqdicer, @ShivkumarVs, @DrewPrinster, @adarshsingh110, RM Juárez, @eairoldi, @ilanabrito123 #HNL 2/ nature.com/articles/s4158…Image
This work took >6 years of my life (with maddening delays due to COVID19), but it started as a kernel of an idea left over from our 2007 paper on the spread of obesity ( ) in which we noted that social contagion and biological contagion could both occur 3/nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.105…Image
Image
Image
Read 21 tweets
Jul 2, 2024
In new work from #HNL in @NatureComms, we explore the ability of simple AI to affect the capacity of creativity of human groups. This work continues a stream of work we inaugurated in 2017, studying “hybrid systems” of humans and machines. 1/ nature.com/articles/s4146…
The primary obstacle to finding good ideas is normally not that innovations are hard to evaluate, but rather that coming up with an original idea that pushes the boundary of available ideas is hard. This is a challenge that groups can both mitigate and amplify. Distinctly, since AI can alter group behavior, AI might also affect creativity. 2/
Innovative ideas can enhance the immediate welfare of a population and even modify the course of human evolution. However, finding such valuable ideas often involves exploring a large pool of possibilities – which can be a challenging process for both individuals and groups. 3/
Read 17 tweets
Jul 1, 2024
Human beings have both friends and enemies, and they can track such connections. Why? It’s not hard to see why we evolved the capacity for friendship, but why do we have a capacity for animosity, and how might it shape our social networks, potentially for the better? 1/
In new work in @PNASNews, @Amir_Ghasemian and I explore “The Structure and Function of Antagonistic Ties in Village Social Networks.”

At the population level, the existence of antagonism has important implications for the overall structure and function of human groups. #HNL 2/

pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…Image
Just as friendship ties can impose costs (ranging from the demands our friends place on us to the risk of infection that social connections entail), antagonistic ties can offer benefits (ranging from enhancing our overall access to novel information or reducing our membership in overly siloed groups). We show how this plays out. 3/

pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…Image
Read 15 tweets
May 3, 2024
Social contagion is a powerful force.

People copy the thoughts, feelings, & actions of those to whom they are connected. Understanding social network structure & function makes it possible to use social contagion to intervene in the world to improve health, wealth, & learning.Image
In a large randomized controlled field trial in 24,702 people in 176 isolated villages in Honduras, published in @ScienceMagazine on May 3, 2024, we showed how social contagion can be used to improve human welfare. #HNL @eairoldi science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
Image
To exploit social contagion, tools are needed to eficiently identify individuals who are better able to initiate cascades. To be maximally useful, such tools should be deployable without having to actually map face-to-face social network interactions. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
Read 18 tweets
Apr 30, 2024
I have some thoughts on this fine statement by @Yale President Peter Salovey regarding desire by some students to impose "ideological litmus test" for access to a shared Yale space.

Salovey said: “Those protestors asked individuals who wished to pass through or enter their area, which is a shared campus space, to agree with their political viewpoints. This action is unacceptable and antithetical to the very purpose of a university.”

It’s is quite right to reject this impulse, but where might students have got this sort of idea?

The background for this statement is pro-Palestinian protests and certain recent actions by some protestors.

For the removal of doubt, I wholly support the right to protest and am sympathetic both to Israel and the civilians suffering horribly in Gaza. I have no problem with the tents or public art.

But protest that stops others from using the campus crosses line into civil disobedience and is distinct from free expression.

and
The problem with the otherwise commendable statement by President Salovey is that the students’ impulse to have a litmus test is part of a broader pattern of such actions at Yale (violating its liberal tenets). We have procedures and bureaucracies that do just this -- which may have given the students this very idea!
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(