People reinfected with cold coronaviruses. Posted May.
Why should we assume SARS-CoV-2 would be different?
Answer cannot be "novel virus", "no solid evidence that it reinfects", "I am an expert" or "magic pony for Christmas", although the latter would be most accurate.
Why should we assume SARS-CoV-2 would be different?
Answer cannot be "novel virus", "no solid evidence that it reinfects", "I am an expert" or "magic pony for Christmas", although the latter would be most accurate.
https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1259201863695679496
A general finding is that antibody is present in a significant portion of adults who, in spite of possessing this antibody, can go on to have reinfection and illness.
- Monto 1974
- Monto 1974
p244: (paraphrased):
most infections are re-infections because antibodies to one seem effective against most coronaviruses. vaccine may not be effective.
That was written in 1974 I will not edit it etc.
most infections are re-infections because antibodies to one seem effective against most coronaviruses. vaccine may not be effective.
That was written in 1974 I will not edit it etc.
"Among adults, 69% of individuals could be demonstrated to have antibody; this indicates, in view of the high incidence of infection with the agents in all age groups, the frequency with which such infections must represent reinfection"
- same page
- same page
"Many of the infections observed with the coronaviruses are in fact reinfections. In the Tecumseh study, 81.5% of those infected with OC43 actually possessed prior neutralizing antibody (49). Possession of circulating OC43 HI antibody
247
among the Atlanta children did not
247
among the Atlanta children did not
appear to play a role in modifying expression of the subsequent infection (34)."
p 248
"The frequency of reinfection observed with these agents is so high that control by vaccination may not be practical, but it is possible that further studies may allow identification of truly protective antibodies. There remains environmental control of infection; such
"The frequency of reinfection observed with these agents is so high that control by vaccination may not be practical, but it is possible that further studies may allow identification of truly protective antibodies. There remains environmental control of infection; such
efforts have only rarely been useful for other respiratory agents and they are likely not to be more efficacious for the coronaviruses (43)."
Again I will not edit the words used.
Again I will not edit the words used.
1990 Callow:
Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. ...
Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. ...
All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as
rhinovirus infections.
Since adults have about two colds per year on average [29, 30] and about half of all coronavirus infections are subclinical [31, 32], each adult should have a coronavirus infection every 2-3 years. This agrees with Monto [33] who suggested a 2-3 year cyclic pattern. It indicates
that protective amounts of antibody may have disappeared by 2 years, and that if we had been able to reinoculate the volunteers after a further year, the reinfection rate would have been even higher.
- still Callow.
- still Callow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
