Intr3pid
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,763
Full text: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full-text
Here are my notes on this study:
1. The research looked at those who recovered (adequately) from the initial infection. It investigated how many re-contracted the virus. If you survived the initial infection and didn't have major health problems (so, no long haulers), you were in this group.
2. You can think of this group as the folks whose immune systems learned to fight and dispel the virus with only the medical equipment/treatment and/or quarantine. The immune systems produced antibodies similar to what the vaccines would trigger. This was an excellent finding, as it would help countries like India deal with rampant infections.
3. The study looked at subsequent reinfections and breakthroughs - including the severity of cases. It did so, however, only for a follow-up period of three months. It would make sense that the antibodies that you produced to fight the virus would still be at hand after three months. But - we don't know what would happen in, say, six months or a year. The authors admit this as the main weakness of the study.
4. This wasn't a controlled study. You wouldn't control who was being tested or being left out. The research was sourced from those who chose to undergo testing out of their own accord. It didn't control for the timing or access to testing by portions of populations. It still did a very good job of working with the data it had.
-------------------
In short, for the infection to generate the antibodies, make sure you (A) survive the virus, (B) are OK with the possibility of long-haul symptoms, (C) can spare time for a quarantine or treatment of up to two weeks without notice, and (D) are ready to possibly repeat the process in three months.
That, or you could get a vaccine.
Last edited: