Citat:
Well, THE studie shows there are three Times more infected than we're able to test.
This means that approximately 10-15% of Swedens population have been infected and this is making THE virus lose its grip.
You're right that it is yet to be proven of infected can be infected again within a few months, Or even a year.
But Common Sense say that should be The case. There Is Always a possibility that The immunity Will show to be a bad thing to have for a second infection.
But that it just would disappear, as you propose, that seems so unlikely that I don't think it is anything to go around AND worry about.
This means that approximately 10-15% of Swedens population have been infected and this is making THE virus lose its grip.
You're right that it is yet to be proven of infected can be infected again within a few months, Or even a year.
But Common Sense say that should be The case. There Is Always a possibility that The immunity Will show to be a bad thing to have for a second infection.
But that it just would disappear, as you propose, that seems so unlikely that I don't think it is anything to go around AND worry about.
No, it shows that antibody levels have dropped below measurable amounts within presumed-asymptomatic patients after 4 months. But the scientific world already knew this. There isn’t a large enough contingency of asymptomatic patients vs symptomatic patients for there to even be 2-3x the current antibody level readings.
I haven’t stated anything to do with re-infection. I said that looking for this T-cell immunity within a population will provide misleading results, because it will bring up people with prior HCoV cross-reactive T-cells. Which could entirely be what they measured here, but I imagine the family members were infected. The cross-reactive T-cells don’t mean anything, really. They don’t protect against infection, they aren’t neutralizing, and they don’t affect the severity of a possible infection.
So what this study has done is said “look, these people now have no antibodies after a period of time”. What it has not done is been able to provide results stating “look, we have 3x more immune than previously thought”. Because we do not, and the evidence is not there for it. This is why subsequent studies referencing this study have brought these assumptions into question while praising the immunological value of the rest of the study.