godisney14
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,837
https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/24...tion-documented-in-hong-kong-researchers-say/
So...this is interesting.
First time around, the patient had mild symptoms, similar to a regular cold. Second time, he was asymptomatic.
It's just one documented case, so it's hard to make any conclusions.
What it sounds to me is that this is similar to when people get reinfected by non-Covid-19 coronaviruses. The T-cell recognizes the virus into recruiting B cells and production of antibodies. The innate immune response is not needed to ramp up and cause symptoms--unless you are immunocompromised.
This also probably means that the patient was likely highly infectious even in the second time around while asymptomatic.
ETA:
Apparently, the patient had no meaningful detectable levels of antibodies after some time after the first infection. This was widely known to be possible from all the studies so far from around the world that showed decreasing levels of antibodies for those with mild/no symptoms. But, this patient did develop antibodies after the re-infection.
What this observation points to is that herd immunity is not a viable approach. (Not that it ever was).
So...this is interesting.
First time around, the patient had mild symptoms, similar to a regular cold. Second time, he was asymptomatic.
It's just one documented case, so it's hard to make any conclusions.
What it sounds to me is that this is similar to when people get reinfected by non-Covid-19 coronaviruses. The T-cell recognizes the virus into recruiting B cells and production of antibodies. The innate immune response is not needed to ramp up and cause symptoms--unless you are immunocompromised.
This also probably means that the patient was likely highly infectious even in the second time around while asymptomatic.
ETA:
Apparently, the patient had no meaningful detectable levels of antibodies after some time after the first infection. This was widely known to be possible from all the studies so far from around the world that showed decreasing levels of antibodies for those with mild/no symptoms. But, this patient did develop antibodies after the re-infection.
What this observation points to is that herd immunity is not a viable approach. (Not that it ever was).
Last edited:
I'm unclear why testing couldn't replace 14 day quarantine for everyone. Here in Canada for example, where tests are easy to come by and fairly quickly processed, why not a test upon entry and and isolation under approved conditions until the results come back? Anyone who tests positive and is not a Canadian citizen would be removed from Canada where practical. Citizens would be required to go into full lock-down until they either tested clear or were asymptomatic for 5 days.



(Sorry, in the old DIS days we were considered such by a few posters... )
My cynical side is leaning towards thinking this is because if we were truly being informed about how few cases are actually being transmitted through random community contact, it would be harder to maintain the levels of concern that are required to compel compliance to restrictions. But if we do just look at the "big picture" of the numbers alone, continued high-levels of alert are also counter-intuitive. In my city for example, with 502 active cases amongst 1.4 million people, the odds of randomly contracting Covid from one of them is so, so small...
OP here. From my earliest intention, everybody is welcome to participate in this thread. The BIG difference is that on this thread, American DIS'ers are commenting in context to what the rest of us are discussing, rather than the numerous other threads where our perspectives are sort of rendered irrelevant and ignored because they are so different and diluted by the sheer numbers of American posters, many of whom really have no interest in things that don't directly affect them.