07-01-2020, 03:28 PM
The paper states "It remains to be determined if a robust memory T cell response in the absence of detectable circulating antibodies can protect against SARS-CoV-2."
I wish the paper were titled "Immune response to COVID-19 is probably higher than tests have shown". The current title to this article will be used by some to suggest complete immunity rather than a potentially reduced impact of the disease.
It also isn't yet clear to me that if you have a pre-existing "robust memory T cell response", whether your outcome is necessarily better if the disease gets established. That is, this response might result in a requirement of a stronger exposure in order to for the virus to get established in you, but, once you get it, are you more or less likely to have negative outcomes (as I understand it, often due to the immune reaction). I hope & expect it is less, but I don't think we yet know. (I believe the general public often call this effect a "tolerance" rather than an "immunity".)
Also, I've noted that the well-documented instances of apparent aerosol transmissions (in an office, restaurant, bus, plane) showed spotty infections among the others in the room. I haven't seen anyone try to differentiate why some didn't get the disease. Is it exposure differences or something about the particular individual. I wouldn't be surprised if different individuals required different levels of exposure for the disease to get established. Is this "immunity" as used in the title?
I wish the paper were titled "Immune response to COVID-19 is probably higher than tests have shown". The current title to this article will be used by some to suggest complete immunity rather than a potentially reduced impact of the disease.
It also isn't yet clear to me that if you have a pre-existing "robust memory T cell response", whether your outcome is necessarily better if the disease gets established. That is, this response might result in a requirement of a stronger exposure in order to for the virus to get established in you, but, once you get it, are you more or less likely to have negative outcomes (as I understand it, often due to the immune reaction). I hope & expect it is less, but I don't think we yet know. (I believe the general public often call this effect a "tolerance" rather than an "immunity".)
Also, I've noted that the well-documented instances of apparent aerosol transmissions (in an office, restaurant, bus, plane) showed spotty infections among the others in the room. I haven't seen anyone try to differentiate why some didn't get the disease. Is it exposure differences or something about the particular individual. I wouldn't be surprised if different individuals required different levels of exposure for the disease to get established. Is this "immunity" as used in the title?