Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • This question is only addressed to those who actually know. If you don't know, please don't post an opinion.

      If the WHO is right that having the Covid-19 illness does not provide immunity against being reinfected then does that also mean that a vaccine is moot?

      Vaccination is based on the premise that introducing the vaccine into the bloodstream causes the body's immune system to produce antibodies which will fight off an infecto=ion, but if the Covid disease itself does not produce immunization then how can a vaccine produce immunization?

      If you are a scientist who knows the answer to this question, please provide an explanation.

      Also, if some politician has asked a similar question or some news personality, I have not heard this. This question came on its own to my mind after reading that the WHO was saying that there is no evidence that being infected produces immunity.

    • An April 6 article from Immunity about your questions. I am not a scientist, but

      the authors of the papers below certainly are.

      Most of the effort has been directed at the spike protein of the virus, in earlier SARS 1. From the second paper

      "Several vaccines for SARS-CoV-1 were developed and tested in animal models, including recombinant S-protein-based vac- cines, attenuated and whole inactivated vaccines, and vectored vaccines (Roper and Rehm, 2009). Most of these vaccines pro- tect animals from challenge with SARS-CoV-1, although many do not induce sterilizing immunity. In some cases, vaccination with the live virus results in complications, including lung dam- age and infiltration of eosinophils in a mouse model (e.g., Bolles et al., 2011; Tseng et al., 2012) and liver damage in ferrets (e.g., Weingartl et al., 2004"

      In short, the process is complicated and challenging....

    • Pathfinder,

      Although on April 6 there were isolated, unconfirmed assertions from one or more countries that previously infected individuals had become sick again, it has only been recently that the WHO and other multi-national sources have started affirming that one bout of COVID-19 does not provide immunity against a second infection.

      I am fully aware that many scientists have for several weeks been working towards developing a vaccine but that was based on the presumption that an infection would produce an immunity. A report from twenty days ago is not likely to answer the question as to whether or not the apparent lack of immunity after one bout of the illness makes it improbable that a vaccine will provide immunity.

      I'm asking about whether this "new information" changes the ballgame.

    • I had the same question and wondered if anyone did know yet, or the virus is just too new to know. So I turned to a recent interview of Dr. Jerome Kim, who runs the International Vaccine Institute. He's considered one of the world's leading experts. It's fascinating:

      The answer seems to be: we hope it will work, we have some optimism but we won't know until some trials progress. He says under normal circumstances it usually takes 10 years...

      But another interview I watched last night affected me. Two doctors from Bakersfield conducted a press conference about their experience on the front lines in a less population dense area. It's exactly what my son-in-law the physician in Oregon has been telling me: 95% of people don't die from Covid, they die with it, meaning the underlying cause of their death was kidney, heart or lung disease — or immune deficiency due to high blood pressure or diabetes.

      My takeaway is maybe nobody can answer your question yet, but they can say the #1 thing we can do is get healthy so if we do get it we optimize our odds of recovery.

      @gorudy had it and it was pretty rough for a few days.

    • affirming that one bout of COVID-19 does not provide immunity against a second infection

      Thanks for starting this important discussion. I have seen the news cycle reporting that there is not yet any data supporting an indvidual's immunity after recovering from CV-19 and testing postive for antibodies. However I haven't seen any specific data supporting that it doesn't provide immunity either. It seems they just don't have any data supporting either argument yet.

      In South Korea where it was reported that recovered patients were testing postive a second time it's still unclear if the patients were fully recovered and then became ill a second time or perhaps if it wasn't a complete remission from the disease and instead a relapse. If the person had been tested for CV between the two posititve tests would they also have tested positive despite appearing healthy? Would they have tested positive for antibodies, then become ill and then tested positive for CV again?

    • What I'm beginning to wonder about is this: If neither the so-called "natural" way of acquiring immunity occurs and if the harvesting of antibodies does not produce an effective vaccine, will we after a couple of years (or less) be forced to abandon our isolation strategy due to a collapsing infrastructure in spite of the lack of a vaccine. Will we end up having no other choice?

    • I was having a conversation about this last night with my folks (both Physicians). My question was at what point is living your life worth the risk? What are our odds of dying in a car crash, how many of us will get cancer by a certain age. Is giving up two years of isolation for low risk cohorts worth it?

      It's worth adding the variable that in the scenario with no immunity there is still the possibility of treatments becoming more practical and effective then being put on a ventilator.

    • I'm not actually speaking in support of the idea of abandoning the stay at home strategy in the near future. I'm talking about whether by 2021 or 2022, we will end up having the choice between a complete collapse of our society's infrastructure and "doing it the hard way."

      We're already seeing a widening disparity in early education. If we are not able to provide education services to the youngest of the impoverished, will we be forced to go back to in person education even without an effective vaccine?

    • We're already seeing a widening disparity in early education. If we are not able to provide education services to the youngest of the impoverished, will we be forced to go back to in person education even without an effective vaccine?

      correct, we have to weigh the risks of exposure and potential outcomes of that risk vs the potential risks and outcomes of long term isolation. The eduction of those who do not have reasonable access to online education is a significant concern. I'm currently in a fairly rural area where the average house hold income is $45,000, I question how many of the youth here have access to a computer and stable household to expect they can resume effective K - 12th grade education.

    • We don’t say to working poor families, “You can’t afford transportation to school, so your kid is shit out of luck in getting an education.” Instead, we provide free bussing to every kid who needs it.

      Over the summer, we should have a massive infrastructure spend to provide free internet to families who need it, so that kids don’t have to risk their lives in the fall because their families are poor.