Bold hopes for virus antibody tests still unfulfilled

Those who recovered from the 1st SARS CoV (17 years ago) still have the memory cells that would protect them from a second attack.

I get the feeling the purpose of the above article is get everyone to get vaccinated, including those who recovered from Covid19 (they don't need it).

I really would like to get an antibody test. Many of us have likely caught the virus already and don't know it.

I get the feeling the purpose of the above article is get everyone to get vaccinated, including those who recovered from Covid19 (they don't need it).

That makes no sense, antibody levels dropping or remaining elevated is not something that is specific for natural infection nor vaccines. In both cases it can be observed. Nothing in the article can be interpreted as an advantage for vaccines.

On the other hand memory cells are an excellent argument for vaccines, because even if it is not simple to determine reactivity in human patients (and that is why antibody tests are much more common) in animal experiments it is routine to do it, so frequently you can observe reports about vaccine candidates efficacy not only about antibody production but also length and strength of cell activation.

That includes many vaccines for SARS and MERS that have demonstrated long lasting protection and no negative side effects, not even after viral challenge to corroborate the protection.

"Some early studies suggested any immunity fades fast; research published last week was more promising, suggesting that antibodies last at least four months after diagnosis and do not fade quickly."

I think it is time govs and media came up with a proper definition of what immunity is. Science suggests that immunity is a permanent protection against a disease and sometimes boosters are needed to guarantee permanent protection. However, when it is NOT permanent then it is misleading and potentially fake news to talk about immunity after being infected with this virus.

I think it is time govs and media came up with a proper definition of what immunity is.

Neither governments nor media are the ones coming up with a definition of immunity. And the problem is not that the term is misleading, but that people simply don't understand what the term actually is and get confused even when it is used as intended.

Immunity does not have to be permanent, nor it has to be perfect, the same as "infection" does not mean the pathogen will be present for a specific amount of time, sometimes it does not even mean getting a disease.

If you get cured from a viral infection then you developed immunity to it, it is an indispensable condition; because it is your immune system the one that kills the bug that is constantly reproducing in your body. This immunity could last a few months, years or all your life but it is immunity.

For months we've had articles mentioning that antibodies against the Covid19 virus decrease to very low levels within months. This was generally followed by recommendations to get regular vaccinations, even for those who have recovered from Covid19.

The implication was that antibody levels equals immunity. While the decrease in antibodies is typical, memory lymphocytes generally remain for a long time, perhaps a lifetime. These memory cells offer protection (immunity) against future infections even if the actual antibodies are low. That is the case for those who recovered from the 1st SARS CoV (17 years ago); they still have the memory lymphocytes. So far, it appears to also be the case for Covid19, but its too soon to know for sure.

For months we've had articles mentioning that antibodies against the Covid19 virus decrease to very low levels within months. This was generally followed by recommendations to get regular vaccinations, even for those who have recovered from Covid19.

The same as the articles you saw being investigated for "massive" doses of HCQ? because those you ended up bringing had neither massive doses nor they were investigated for malpractice.

With that antecedent it is perfectly likely you simply misunderstood the articles and projected that misunderstanding into something the articles never said. Just like this one.

While the decrease in antibodies is typical, memory lymphocytes generally remain for a long time, perhaps a lifetime. These memory cells offer protection (immunity) against future infections even if the actual antibodies are low.

Yes, something we now understand about also covid19 thanks to the preclinical studies done in laboratory animals, so once again memory cells are one of the strongest arguments for vaccination. Much more than antibodies, we don't know how many of the infected people (specially asymptomatic people) actually have a preserved activation function and how long, but for preclinical trials (and some of the clinical ones) the laboratory analysis includes isolation and examination of the memory cells, letting us know that vaccines successfully stimulate them and provide protection that apparently is long lasting.

To be more simple, in the case of antibodies both the natural infection and vaccines are the same, including waning levels. But for memory cells vaccines have more evidence that they work.

The same as the articles you saw being investigated for "massive" doses of HCQ? because those you ended up bringing had neither massive doses nor they were investigated for malpractice.

The British study I brought up had doses that were way above the maximum dose listed in the British National Formulary ("provides authoritative & practical information on the selection & clinical use of medicines").

Look at the papers again; your dose comparisons of the Belgium and British studies were wrong. Your numbers were wrong.

The British study I brought up had doses that were way above the maximum dose listed in the British National Formulary ("provides authoritative & practical information on the selection & clinical use of medicines").

No, it does not, they make the specific point in the materials and methods, as you would know if you had read them, that the treatment produce concentrations in blood "at the upper end of those observed during steady state treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with hydroxychloroquine". You really need to understand (or read on the first place) the things you link about.

Look at the papers again; your dose comparisons of the Belgium and British studies were wrong. Your numbers were wrong.

Done, they are perfectly right, the problem then is that you could not understand the texts you linked and assumed mistakenly that a difference between 600 and 800 mg/day was "massive" when in reality is not really that important.

And more importantly none of the studies you linked are under investigation for scientific malpractice as you said they were, both of the reasons you cited the articles were wrong. Most likely because you could not understand them.

Once again, the most likely explanation why you think this article and many others say things that only belong to your imagination is that you also could not understand them. You demonstrated this with HCQ and now with the meaning of the levels of antibodies. Most people do not have these kind of troubles, so the article only appears to have a hidden agenda for you. Something easily corrected by improving your understanding of it.