Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
health

Studies find having COVID-19 may protect against reinfection

14 Comments
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Odd... how can one be reinfected if they haven’t been infected by it before?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Sure wish the flu was the same.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

hmmm...is this a slight acknowledgment for herd immunity? The powers that be have decided it is not to be discussed, so look for this story to disappear soon.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Interesting how covidiots keep cherrypicking certain studies to keep their narrative going. Be it masks, herd immunity etc.

Send them home. Keep Japan safe.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Why is @Haaa Nemui being downvoted when they raise a valid point? You can't be reinfected if you haven't been infected in the first place, so this claim that having Covid offers protection against reinfection doesn't make any sense. That's like saying getting killed will protect you from dying again.

Besides, this is old news isn't it? They've been saying that people who have had Covid will have some protection against reinfection due to the antibodies for months now. Back in August - September was when I first heard about it. It was being publicised in response to claims that having Covid once makes you immune to reinfection. Which of course, isn't true. Even at that time people were being reinfected.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Odd... how can one be reinfected if they haven’t been infected by it before?

The study is not made to differentiate if someone without antibodies has or not been infected before, so it can only say that people that had, and still present antibodies are the ones that are resistant to reinfection. The people without antibodies are not protected, be ti because they were never infected on the first place or because they lost them after a while.

hmmm...is this a slight acknowledgment for herd immunity? The powers that be have decided it is not to be discussed, so look for this story to disappear soon.

Disappear from the dozens and dozens of sites where it is posted all over the internet? not really a possibility, much less the two scientific studies that are the basis. Herd immunity is the goal for all the medical interventions in place for COVID-19, nobody is interested in hiding it, the misconception is thinking that rampant infection is a good way to achieve it, it is not. These reports do nothing to validate that mistaken idea.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

virusrex - I do get it really, it was more just a lame attempt at a dad joke kind of thing.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

shot,

Herd immunity is the goal for all the medical interventions in place for COVID-19

chaser,

 the misconception is thinking that rampant infection is a good way to achieve it, it is not.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

As much as people hate Elon Musk for being a 'bro' and whatever, his point about having 4 PCR tests he had on the same day giving different results is valid: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/13/musk-tests-positive-and-negative-for-covid-19-antigen-vs-pcr-tests.html

That is what happens when tested on a single point in time when titers are close to the limit of detection. It happens with every kind of test, from X-rays to glycemia determinations. That does not apply on studies like this, when people are repeatedly tested.

I reckon herd immunity will also probably be achieved by spring as well and I saw a preprint that found antibodies in about 40%+ of people tested in Tokyo, but as a rule I don't link to preprints as they have not been assessed by peer-review. I am waiting for it to be formally reviewed but fingers crossed.

If it is the same preprint that reported the increase from 0 to over 40% on a single month there is no point on waiting, the current spike in positive cases is enough to prove it false, according to that badly made study this would be impossible to observe because by the trend predicted by it close to 100% of the people would be immune by November. There is a reason why your prediction is not shared by any of the experts that actually follow the Japanese situation.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Yes, sure, and those young people infected twice with very severe symptoms or even dying after the second infection underline that this new stupid bs is the only and holy truth. I book this one here under false-hopes-spreading, prayers and light from the end of tunnels, right next to horoscopes and tarot cards...lol

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yes, sure, and those young people infected twice with very severe symptoms or even dying after the second infection underline that this new stupid bs is the only and holy truth.

Reference needed, how many "young people" are you talking about? 2? 20? 2000? how was the second infection diagnosed? How does that contradict these studies?

Many people confuse having a recrudescence and a new infection, they are not the same thing. Until now there is only clear evidence of reinfection for patients that have immune problems, but that is the same for every infectious disease, including those that give immunity "for life".

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This article basically shows that there are no such thing as her immunity for this virus since the antibody only remains active for a certain amount of months leaving that person liable to contract COVID after the antibody becomes dormant (Loses effect).

It also means we will need to get injected of the vaccine ever few months to maintain immunity against the virus.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This article basically shows that there are no such thing as her immunity for this virus since the antibody only remains active for a certain amount of months leaving that person liable to contract COVID after the antibody becomes dormant (Loses effect).

It also means we will need to get injected of the vaccine ever few months to maintain immunity against the virus.

No, the results lead to the opposite conclusion. Most of the people had protection for a period of at least 6 months, and nothing indicates that this was the maximum amount of time. You just have to read the first paragraph: *Researchers found that people who made antibodies to the coronavirus were much less likely to test positive again for up to six months and *maybe longer.

Vaccinated people have strong levels of antibodies, more than what asymptomatic infections give, so there is no evidence that would indicate that vaccines would have to be needed after only a few months. On the other hand the immune response against the first SARS virus is very strong even after much more than a decade, so it would be expected that for COVID-19 it would be the same.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites