|
|
|
|
|
|
by ripe
1645 days ago
|
|
|
The concluding para from your Nature article says the opposite of what you're claiming, and supports the person you're replying to: "the persistence of antibody production, whether elicited by vaccination or by infection, does not ensure long-lasting immunity to COVID-19. The ability of some emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants to blunt the protective effects of antibodies means that additional immunizations may be needed to restore levels, says Ellebedy. “My presumption is, we will need a booster.”" |
|
|
I think the bone marrow cells are indicative of long-term protection from severe illness. They have long ramp up time from the point of latest exposure.
Blood boosted antibodies will be there to thwart an infection and continue to be there to prevent reinfection but the body turns off the pump because it becomes a waste of resource without an active enemy.
So the lifecycle of a (non-boosted) person going through endemic sars-cov2 will be slow activation followed by an afterburner which will tend to get you through a wave. Or you can try to time a booster to get you through a wave without getting triggered by the actual virus.
So in a sense, there is evidence long term "slow" immunity which is less effective at preventing transmissions and so allows for waves which indicates a certain lack of immunity by another defintion. I think that leads to conflict because of fuzzy definition on either side of the conversation.
Anyway that's my mental model of this whole thing. Any glaring holes?