Coronavirus: T-cell immunity exists six months after infection, study finds

-

"Coronavirus: T-cell immunity exists six months after infection, study finds" - Sky


https://news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-t-cell-immunity-exists-six-months-after-infection-study-finds-12121816

This must come as quite a shock. Who'd have thought there could be more to immunity than antibody levels?

Of course that's not the whole article...

The article goes on to say...

"But the researchers, from Public Health England and the UK Coronavirus Immunity Consortium, warn that it's still not clear whether the T-cell levels were high enough to protect against re-infection."


I suggest referring to known science as a starting point.  There used to be quite a lot of it around, although we seem to have mislaid it recently.

To be cautious though I suggest (seriously) this:

1) Treat as true the commonly declared hypothesis that "only people with measurable levels of antibodies have immunity".

2) Work out what should happen if that is the case.

3) Test your predictions against observed reality.

4) Do you see what you should see?

If YES: Your hypothesis may be correct (although never 100%; another conversation).

If NO: Your hypothesis regarding immunity from #SARS_CoV_2 is wrong.


This video, half a century old, summarise the idea beautifully.

"The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY&feature=youtu.be


The recent ICL study re declining antibody levels provides an opportunity to examine the hypotheses that only measurable levels of antibodies provide effective immunity. If it were true then UK should have seen several hundred reinfections already. I've seen none reported (& only a handful worldwide).




@RuminatorDan



Popular posts from this blog

Czech Republic & other European Higher Fatality Countries

-
Image
CZECH REPUBLIC & OTHER EUROPEAN HIGHER FATALITY COUNTRIES Signs of Czech Rep deaths slowing? I wish them well. Interesting, yet again, that the cumulative total is so similar to other hard hit locations, which are all around 10x lower than generally used predictions... The point is not to use these data for some ugly competition. Rather, these data and their differences - or similarities - can reveal very important information about #SARSCoV2 . For example, UK deaths were predicted to reach ~7500 per Million (=~500k people, without measures). However, if the hypotheses that led to such predictions were true, & such totals have only been averted by lockdown, then one would expect large variations between countries (as exact details & timing of lockdown and other measures would be critical). High sensitivity to timing would be the case if "high lethality+all susceptible+lockdowns work" hypotheses were true. Yet all the high fatality locations have quite similar tota...
Read more

England & Wales Autumn Covid deaths show regional heterogeneity. London, in particular, is interesting

-
Image
England & Wales Autumn Covid deaths show regional heterogeneity. London, in particular, is interesting [27Nov2020_1] London's more severe & earlier spring growth may well explain why it has, to date, seen less of an autumn rise. [Charts normalised by year to date non-Covid deaths.] The generally held belief is that only a small percentage of people have so far been infected by SARS-CoV-2 & that the vast majority remain susceptible to infection - hence all the measures taken. There are, however, reasons & evidence suggesting that this is not the case. If the vast majority of people were still susceptible, one would expect growth everywhere. However, autumn rises have varied greatly across regions. London especially, given its nature (crowding etc) would be expected to show aggressive growth, as it did in spring.  It has not. The past provides a clue as to the reason. London's spring rise in Covid deaths was the most aggressive: not only faster & larger than o...
Read more

False Positives mean R can never reach zero and will remain around 1 indefinitely

-
Image
False Positives mean R can never reach zero and will remain around 1 indefinitely If prevalence was low enough that most positives were false, cases would appear to stop falling & settle at a low level (+noise). R would rise from below 1 to around 1 & jump around at that level. Indefinitely. E.g. below. % of positive tests declines; then settles at a low but non zero level. If R is determined by the changes in this number (slope of graph) it would be <1 during decline, then rise & settle around 1 but with significant variation due to noise etc being larger at low levels. @RuminatorDan
Read more