NHL and NBA were really the only two that had a shot at making it through COVID free. MLB and NFL are not bubbled, and are traveling all over the country. No surprises with the latest news.
I don’t understand how a vaccine can make one immune if getting the virus and surviving it doesn’t make one immune, little help?
Multiple vaccines give immunity which might be preferable to catching the disease itself multiple times
We also might wind up needing yearly booster shots.
Your immune system generates antibodies basically at random until it arrives at something that works. That might result in binding to a highly mutagenic region of a viral protein, which might save you this time around but not next. A vaccine can be more intelligently designed, administering, say, a more conserved region of the viral protein to stimulate an immune response against that, which may be longer lasting.
6 Likes
It may end up being like the flu shot, where we need to get it every year or even more frequently and Jenny McCarthy poisons the brains of millions by saying it causes autism.
There’s two simpler explanations here too.
- The estimate is incorrect
- The levels are below needed for herd immunity
Given 44-66% is below the herd immunity level, this is explained by things a lot simpler than immunity wearing off.
1 Like
Centuries actually. There were apparently smallpox something or other in an ancient medical book that was contagious. It made the news.
My take on what we know is that Covid-19 immunity is temporary but not an all or nothing proposition. Covid-19 is new enough that if you have had it you likely still have at least some resistance to it if not outright immunity. You can get the flu over and over but have you ever heard of someone getting it twice in the same flu season?
1 Like
Yeah doctor House ran into a case that scuba divers got off a boat that had been sunk for a couple hundred years!
3 Likes
There was a smallpox scab found in a Civil War era medical book, but it wasn’t viable. (I just did a bunch of searching because centuries sounded far fetched and I was interested.) If you have a valid source, I would like to read it.
I think Anthrax can live a long time - up to 50 years or maybe more.
I think it can happen (flu twice) but as outliers due to an effed up immune system.
Concur that partial immunity even if wears off.
But yeah we might frequent boosters on this thing. They are developing new things all the time. The something extra in shingles helps with longer lasting and more vigorous immune response.
Getting my flu shot today before I fly next week to help my son that’s having some issues.
3 Likes
Spores (anthrax) can live a long long time. Decades easy.
One interesting thing I found is that they are worried about smallpox victims who may have been buried in tundra and remained solidly frozen for a long time. Apparently in Siberia, a lot of dead bodies are emerging from the tundra due to climate change.
Yeah anthrax is weird because it has a spore form that can sit around for a long time.
It’s possible that somewhere in the 44-66% range is a threshold where “herd immunity” is in effect WITH mask wearing and other precautions, but once you go back to normal it continues burning through the population.
And of course this is why I’ve been pretty adamant we not call this mask+herd combo actual herd immunity.
1 Like
I thought it was if you caught it in like Nov and March or something, unlucky timing.
WHO releases rapid tests - here’s why the UK won’t have any
On-the-spot coronavirus tests – 120 million of them – which give results within minutes are being made available to low- and middle-income countries by the World Health Organization.
One of the tests – the South Korean-made SD BioSensor – is already in use in Italy to screen people at airports.
But these speedy tests are not currently available in the UK.
That’s partly because different countries have different ways of approving tests, and hold them to different standards.
And the UK has generally erred on the side of caution in this arena.
Apart from a natural risk aversion, these very quick tests are considerably less sensitive than the standard test used in the NHS.
That means they pick up fewer cases and tell more people they’re negative when they do in fact have the virus.
For countries that don’t have the infrastructure to run big labs and currently have very little access to any testing at all, these kits could be a game-changer.
The UK is instead focusing its energy on two other rapid tests, which take more like 90 minutes to process than ten and are roughly as sensitive as the standard diagnostic test.
1 Like