Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

wackadoo wabbit

(1,313 posts)
Sat Apr 25, 2020, 08:05 PM Apr 2020

If WHO says there may not be immunity from being infected, doesn't that mean a vaccine won't work? [View all]

The World Health Organization is warning that people who have had Covid-19 are not necessarily immune by the presence of antibodies from getting the virus again.

"There is no evidence yet that people who have had Covid-19 will not get a second infection," WHO said in a scientific brief published Friday. . . .

Dr. Mary Hayden, spokesperson for [the Infectious Diseases Society of America] and chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rush University Medical Center, said, "We do not know whether or not patients who have these antibodies are still at risk of reinfection with Covid-19. At this point, I think we have to assume that they could be at risk of reinfection."

"We don't know even if the antibodies are protective, what degree of protection they provide, so it could be complete, it could be partial, or how long the antibodies last," Hayden added, "We know that antibody responses wane over time."


https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/us/who-immunity-antibodies-covid-19/index.html


But remember, vaccines work by tricking the body into thinking that it's contracted the disease and, thus, causing the body to make antibodies against it.

If antibodies aren't protective, then it doesn't matter if they come from having actually had COVID or from a COVID vaccine.

Food for thought.

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That Is Not What They Are Saying, Sir The Magistrate Apr 2020 #1
Fair enough. I changed the title of my post to reflect that (given the constraints . . . wackadoo wabbit Apr 2020 #5
My Intention Was Not To Assail You, Sir The Magistrate Apr 2020 #12
LOL, ok! nt USALiberal Apr 2020 #29
Herd immunity . . Iliyah Apr 2020 #2
Not if you can get reinfected... Vaccine might be prophylaxis JCMach1 Apr 2020 #4
There has to be immunity or nobody could recover from this Calculating Apr 2020 #3
It should be noted however that the scientific community has not given up on the totodeinhere Apr 2020 #10
You can develop immunity to the strain that infected you but still be susceptible to other strains. LonePirate Apr 2020 #14
I see exactly that as the big danger DFW Apr 2020 #35
I'm not counting on a vaccine. Most experts seem to still believe there is some level Hoyt Apr 2020 #6
I would not jump to that conclusion yet. totodeinhere Apr 2020 #7
Eventually people would get sick of the quarantine and get on with life Calculating Apr 2020 #11
Your scenario is possible, but we don't know enough yet to be able to predict the long term totodeinhere Apr 2020 #13
Well in that case it would just be the literal apocalypse Calculating Apr 2020 #15
No jberryhill Apr 2020 #17
No, it will not be an apocalypse. But it is possible that its consequences will be very serious totodeinhere Apr 2020 #25
re: "Over generations, less vulnerable populations emerge" thesquanderer Apr 2020 #30
If it wasn't for the fact that generational assistance is important jberryhill Apr 2020 #31
I suspect that the number of young people who fail to live long enough to reproduce... thesquanderer Apr 2020 #36
And it took over a decade to develop effective therapeutics for HIV/AIDS (n/t) thesquanderer Apr 2020 #28
The other day they had someone on MSNBC usedtobedemgurl Apr 2020 #8
I wish I could remember the technical term for that effect now, but it's one of the reasons... Silent3 Apr 2020 #18
We'll probably end up with a yearly vaccine like the flu rather than a one time vaccine like polio. LonePirate Apr 2020 #9
Maybe I'm misrembering, or just haven't updated bad earlier information... Silent3 Apr 2020 #19
That info is newer than what I have. A slowly mutating virus is better for vaccine development. LonePirate Apr 2020 #22
We may need periodic vaccines, but not because it mutates DrToast Apr 2020 #23
It's an unlikely worse-case scenario that a vaccine wouldn't work at all. Silent3 Apr 2020 #16
Hopefully there will be an effective vax, if not I'm WePurrsevere Apr 2020 #20
At least in monkeys Dem2 Apr 2020 #21
Either that or we're in for an interesting future... jberryhill Apr 2020 #26
It could be deadly to all mammals ... JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2020 #27
Less than half of Americans get the yearly flu vaccine. stopbush Apr 2020 #24
and the flu vaccine only reduces the chance of getting the flu by in the range of 40 to 60%. n/t thesquanderer Apr 2020 #32
That's better odds than 0%. stopbush Apr 2020 #34
There is anecdotal evidence of antibody transferrance being a treatment... Wounded Bear Apr 2020 #33
I sure am hoping Dem2 Apr 2020 #37
+1 crickets Apr 2020 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If WHO says there may not...