If you catch the coronavirus, what kind of immunity do you end up with?
The question has dogged & puzzled scientists & physicians since the pandemic started.
Now a real study suggests sober news:
Immunity lasts 3 months, or less.
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul…
The question has dogged & puzzled scientists & physicians since the pandemic started.
Now a real study suggests sober news:
Immunity lasts 3 months, or less.
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul…
2/ This antibody study done by Kings College London.
It is in pre-print status (link below), submitted for peer review.
It enrolled 71 people with the virus (including 6 healthcare workers), & 31 staff members as controls.
First study to monitor antibody levels over 3 months.
It is in pre-print status (link below), submitted for peer review.
It enrolled 71 people with the virus (including 6 healthcare workers), & 31 staff members as controls.
First study to monitor antibody levels over 3 months.
3/ Some data from the study:
• 60% of patients mount what is described as a 'potent' antibody response to the virus
• antibodies peak about 3 weeks after onset of symptoms
• after 3 months, only 17% retain that potent response
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
• 60% of patients mount what is described as a 'potent' antibody response to the virus
• antibodies peak about 3 weeks after onset of symptoms
• after 3 months, only 17% retain that potent response
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
4/ Study's lead author is Katie Doores.
'People are producing a reasonable antibody response to the virus, but it’s waning over a short period of time and depending on how high your peak is, that determines how long the antibodies are staying around,' Doores told the Guardian.
'People are producing a reasonable antibody response to the virus, but it’s waning over a short period of time and depending on how high your peak is, that determines how long the antibodies are staying around,' Doores told the Guardian.
5/ Doores:
'Infection tends to give you the best-case scenario for an antibody response, so if your infection is giving you antibody levels that wane in 2 to 3 months, the vaccine will potentially do the same thing. People may need boosting & one shot might not be sufficient.'
'Infection tends to give you the best-case scenario for an antibody response, so if your infection is giving you antibody levels that wane in 2 to 3 months, the vaccine will potentially do the same thing. People may need boosting & one shot might not be sufficient.'
6/ This study is important implications.
First, caveat: Coronaviruses often don't confer much long-lasting immunity. A coronavirus causes the common cold, and we do get that over and over.
So this isn't dramatically surprising behavior for the virus.
First, caveat: Coronaviruses often don't confer much long-lasting immunity. A coronavirus causes the common cold, and we do get that over and over.
So this isn't dramatically surprising behavior for the virus.
7/ But here are some issues it raises.
First, if getting the disease doesn't confer long-lasting immunity, it's unlikely a vaccine will give immunity as long as the disease, let alone longer (as Doores said).
An effective vaccine might need to be dosed more than once a year.
First, if getting the disease doesn't confer long-lasting immunity, it's unlikely a vaccine will give immunity as long as the disease, let alone longer (as Doores said).
An effective vaccine might need to be dosed more than once a year.
8/ Second, if your own immunity doesn't last more than 3 or 4 months, getting the disease once doesn't protect you from getting it again.
Doctors think a 2nd infection might be milder (your immune system retains 'memory' of the original infection, & can make antibodies faster).
Doctors think a 2nd infection might be milder (your immune system retains 'memory' of the original infection, & can make antibodies faster).
9/ But a disease that can sicken the same person two or three times a year means two things:
• No 'herd immunity' is built up through infection.
• The best bet is not to get sick — especially given how corrosive some of the long-term impact of infection may turn out to be.
• No 'herd immunity' is built up through infection.
• The best bet is not to get sick — especially given how corrosive some of the long-term impact of infection may turn out to be.
10/ That has all kinds of implications for thinking about how to manage the pandemic until there is a vaccine.
You need to starve the virus of fresh people to sicken.
Flatten the curve doesn't do it, because everyone can get sick with the spark of contagion.
Crush the curve.
You need to starve the virus of fresh people to sicken.
Flatten the curve doesn't do it, because everyone can get sick with the spark of contagion.
Crush the curve.
11/ We need fast, reliable testing, with fast, reliable results. (Side note: Member of this household just got a test. 1 hour wait for the swab. Six day wait — 6 days! — for results.)
We need vigorous, technology-backed contact tracing.
If you're infected, you need to isolate.
We need vigorous, technology-backed contact tracing.
If you're infected, you need to isolate.
12/ We have the tools, the techniques & the science to suffocate this virus.
New York State is down to 1.1% positive rate on tests (at 50,000 tests/day).
But we need to take the implications of this study seriously—while other groups reproduce it.
New York State is down to 1.1% positive rate on tests (at 50,000 tests/day).
But we need to take the implications of this study seriously—while other groups reproduce it.
13/ In the US, this Kings College London study isn't getting nearly enough attention.
It reshapes how we view 'cases' each day ('Cases don't matter' seems less true than ever.)
But also, it should reshape vaccine expectations & planning.
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul…
It reshapes how we view 'cases' each day ('Cases don't matter' seems less true than ever.)
But also, it should reshape vaccine expectations & planning.
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul…
14/ Getting enough vaccine for 8 billion people — along with vials, needles, the equipment to administer the vaccine — that was keeping people up at night, and working all day, already.
But what if you need to administer that vaccine twice a year for it to be effective?
But what if you need to administer that vaccine twice a year for it to be effective?
15/ Once you snuff out the virus effectively most places — through public health practices, testing / tracing / isolation, & a vaccine, then it might be possible to administer the vaccine less often.
But it doesn't look like this will be 'one shot & done,' or 'one shot & safe.'
But it doesn't look like this will be 'one shot & done,' or 'one shot & safe.'
16/ Yes this study is just in pre-print. Not accepted for publication, not peer-reviewed yet.
But dramatic and important implications. And this is Kings College London. Serious folks.
Guardian story below, link to study again next tweet.
#
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul…
But dramatic and important implications. And this is Kings College London. Serious folks.
Guardian story below, link to study again next tweet.
#
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul…
18/ I've updated this thread with a fresh thread on the wider immune response to covid — it's not just about antibodies.
Start here (it's short but important):
Start here (it's short but important):
