rickair7777

"Extremely rare" for covid. This is fairly typical of most viruses, but it's nice to see definitive evidence.

Duration of immunity is likely more than six months, they just haven't been running a controlled study long enough to know yet. Presumably they'll keep running the study, as will others.

This is also good news for vaccines, it probably translates to vaccine-acquired immunity too.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28015L

senecacaptain

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...s-quickly-some

rickair7777

"Extremely Rare" according to the actual University of Oxford scientific study in my post above.

Anecdotal stories which were amplified for max hysteria and clickbait in the media are not reliable indicators of what's really going on. In medicine and biology you can always find outliers, even rare ones, if you look hard enough.

Even so, vaccines are likely to provide better and more consistent immunity than natural infections.

senecacaptain

thanks....

my link is from a peer reviewed research group

https://www.sciencemag.org/about/about-science-aaas

rickair7777

I'm not seeing a peer-reviewed study in there. They are highlighting what look like rare cases, and even the article points out that T/B cells are observed to linger for 6+ months.

With tens of millions of covid cases worldwide, it's no surprise that you can find some re-infections. The study found it "extremely rare", not non-existent.

Excargodog

Given that few people have HAD coronavirus more than nine months ago:



OF COURSE reinfection would be rare. To have it twice by now within a nine month period you would have had to have had it once nine months ago, and damn few people meet that criteria. And nine months to a year is about the typical time people become susceptible to reinfection after an infection (or previous reinfection) with the four other common human coronaviruses that circulate in our society.

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/0...coronaviruses/

This whole thread seems like a desperate grasping at straws. Time will tell if this coronavirus yields the short-lived immunity of its fellowship is somehow different, and insufficient time has yet passed to make that assessment.

Nor does short-lived natural immunity indicate that subsequent reinfection might not be milder (or - less likely - worse) or that a good vaccine might not provide a longer duration of immunity than natural infection.

Y’all are prognosticating beyond what you have data to support - in either direction.

Of course, that’s sort of what we do on APC.

senecacaptain

I would agree here.

The virus has only been studied in depth for 6-9 months now. We are learning everyday. A 60 year old coworker Pilot got COVID, he stayed home with allergy type symptoms and no other problems.

A 35 year old gym rat coworker Pilot got COVID and was in the hospital for 3 days.

It impacts different people in different ways.

rickair7777

I didn't prognosticate, I posted an article from a reputable media outlet on the results of a scientific study from a (very) reputable research establishment.

Six months of good immunity, while not surprising, is significant because vaccines should provide at least the same duration as natural immunity. So call it a milestone... if they can show good immunity at 12 months, that almost certainly gets us to worst-case, an annual vaccine booster. But even a six-month booster would be a lot better than nothing as an interim fix.

rickair7777

That's why they did a scientific study, which controls for the sample size. As opposed to counting anecdotal stories in the pop media.

This much is true, and cause for concern. But as long as we're referencing other bugs, experience has shown that vaccines are likely to provide better, more consistent results than natural immunity.

Excargodog

from the article cited by the OP:


Given that the four other common human coronaviruses typically confer 9 months to a year of immunity the fact that nobody had symptomatic reinfections in a six month period - while reassuring - isn’t really surprising.