“The gun is broken” he said, as he flared away that each shot landed differently. After giving him a few minutes to gather his thoughts, we discussed what happened. I told him that the gun is new and we don’t know how it behaves yet. We should not be surprised that there are some kinks to work with but the more we shoot it the better we will understand how it performs. A day later, and with great patience, every shot was hitting the target tightly.
A similar narrowing at targets is at play out as studies have emerged on the body’s immune responses to Kovid-19. We are still in the viewing phase – in a new gun; Shots are coming across the target and people are getting frustrated by the lack of agreement within the scientific community. Countless questions were asked:
Do Kovid-19 antibodies protect us from regeneration? Do they persist longer after recovering or do they run faster? And what does this mean for vaccine development?
These questions resumed in early April as the first antibody data began to emerge. After reading an introductory article on antibody testing, I wrote a note in an online forum for my graduating class, titled “This is terrible news, tell me why.” The paper clearly showed that people who had overcome infection where antibodies were produced against the virus, but that was not my concern. It was disturbing that antibodies are at a peak, but then rapidly decreased in concentration – so much so that if the reduction followed in a linear fashion, you would have no protective antibodies left within 120–150 days.
It suggested that patients who had recovered from Kovid-19 could be resuscitated and become ill again. Antibody-induced immunity lasts from six months to a year which we often observe with human coronaviruses that cause the common cold. If this initial study is to be relied upon, it would be truly terrible news.
Another article that described lowering antibody levels in June was published in June and showed a similar result with a second report in July. Subsequent paper showed that, on average, patients’ antibody levels drop to about 36 days after the onset of symptoms, while a small fraction of those samples declined much more.
Science seemed to confirm my initial fear that antibody immunity would not be sufficient to protect recovered coronovirus victims from recombination.
But then science progressed. A series of publications in recent weeks on antibody responses to vaccines and an elegant serological study – an examination of antibodies in your blood – remain the focus of our knowledge. Both Oxford and Modern vaccines produced a strong antibody response in the form of high or high response resulting from mild or moderate infection with the surviving SARS-COV-2 virus. These vaccines are like a school for your immune system, they teach your body how to respond to the virus without causing disease. This was good news! If the antibody level starts higher, it will probably last longer than previously reported. The limitation is that we still need time to determine how long antibodies will persist – and whether they will be shown to prevent infection with viruses in the real world.
Additionally, a serological study posted as a pre-print by a research team at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City demonstrated that after mild-to-moderate Kovid-19 infection, antibody levels were lower than their peak Done, then maintained a stable level for at least three months.
It also showed that this immune response was able to neutralize the virus, the recovered patient may have some level of immunological protection. This study differed from early antibody studies in that the number of patients evaluated was very high – it consisted of approximately 20,000 patient blood samples (larger than 9x the sample size of previous studies) and methods specifically designed to measure concentration it was done. Antibody against the virus’s spike protein that allows it to enter our cells. However it has not yet come under peer review that extensive methods of study have made it the best example of serological research on coronoviruses.
It’s not that the early studies were wrong, they just didn’t think about how their data relates to the fight for immunity. In battle, you want to overwhelm your opponent with strength of numbers and better armament. This is also true for the antibody response of the immune system.
When a virus attacks your body and an antibody response is needed for protection, you do not make enough antibodies to match your viral competitor, you can kill the virus by drowning it and cleaning it from your system. Consider the goal too high. When the viral threat is cleared up, many of the antibody-secreting cells that are recruited into the fight are allowed to die off the free space and resources to respond to new threats to your body, and that cell death causes them The antibodies they are producing also begin to worsen. . This anti-viral antibody response would be seen as a rapid increase in antibody levels, and then rapid waning of antibodies in the months following infection. This rapid decline in antibodies was caught by early studies.
But, among the initial studies that fail to resolve, some of the antibody-secreting cells can remain in the bone marrow, possibly persisting for years, secreting virus-immunizing antibodies. Therefore after rapid decrease in subsequent infection of antibodies, antibody levels will plateau and remain as long as the antibody-secreting cells that remain in the bone marrow remain for a long time. This type of response is well known with many viral infections, and importantly, it is well documented to occur in survivors of MERS infection.
High antibody concentrations are not required to fight infection in the future. We only need enough antibodies to support the innate immune system to prevent the virus from establishing infection.
Given the promising results of antibody stimulation from Kovid-19 vaccines in development, my belief is steadily increasing that a vaccine that provides at least modest protection from severe disease symptoms.
However, we should keep in mind that each new antibody study may draw different conclusions, resulting in a need to re-read our understanding – and we should keep in mind that this is asymptomatic for Kovid-19 victims. What can mean Remember, long, hard fights help train our immune system for future threats.
So you may not need protective antibodies to avoid exposure in the future by avoiding getting infected and developing symptoms of infection. It is also likely that we will find differences in antibody responses between children and adults or between men and women.
Meanwhile, there are conflicting results in science in general, especially at the beginning of studying a new subject. We should not jump to conclusions, especially in studies with some samples or with title-grabbing titles. Each new study published helps to refine our understanding and we should keep in mind that we are all seeking quality results, but negative results or those that do not deserve the current statement should all scientists understand our Let’s help refine the focus.