• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

We have more immunity to SARS-CoV-2 than thought

Status
Not open for further replies.

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,025
Location
West Wiltshire
I’m not an expert but have seen various interviews with professors/scientists etc and seems to be mix of views on what is causing fall as lockdown eases.

Sunny weather / more outside boosting vitamin D (which helps blood cells)
More partial immunity building up across population
Less coughs/sneezes (tends to be seasonal)
More hygiene/ sanitization (taps, door handles, etc) so less contamination by physical transfer

However, there does seem to be a lot of wariness about it coming back as weather gets cold in Autumn and people move their activities back indoors, along with usual seasonal viruses
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I watched the video attached to your post, which was fascinating - thanks for that. And I agree that it seems to be based on genuine peer reviewed research. It begins to explain some of the complexities of the Coronavirus epidemic.

One question I was left asking is how this relates to the "R" number, which is as I understand it a measured value based on the average number of people inflected by each infected person. The video made clear that body has multi-layered defences against viruses and if the first levels work (for example the mucus membranes prevent entry), then presumably the person will never test positive, so the "R" will already take this into account. Putting it another way, at which level does a person start to test positive?

It all really depends on what the tests are looking for. At the moment the tests are looking directly for the virus or looking for the anti-bodies that are specific to the virus. However, as in the video, if someone contracts it but the T-cells recognise the proteins displayed by an infected cell and they deal with it before enough anti-bodies are produced then someone may never test positive as it stands, because the T-cells that may have activated will be ones produced from previous coronavirus infections. This might go some way to explain why some people appear to have the symptoms, or at least milder versions but test negative.

I’m not an expert but have seen various interviews with professors/scientists etc and seems to be mix of views on what is causing fall as lockdown eases.

Sunny weather / more outside boosting vitamin D (which helps blood cells)
More partial immunity building up across population
Less coughs/sneezes (tends to be seasonal)
More hygiene/ sanitization (taps, door handles, etc) so less contamination by physical transfer

However, there does seem to be a lot of wariness about it coming back as weather gets cold in Autumn and people move their activities back indoors, along with usual seasonal viruses

As with any infection, there will be a lot of factors involved. Certainly having a healthy immune system, and of course the right foods / proteins that this needs will go a long way towards giving a person a better chance of dealing with it. And of course good basic hygiene will also reduce the chances of contracting it in the first place. It doesn't have to be obsessive cleaning, just regular washing of hands as well as often used surfaces.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
592
This might go some way to explain why some people appear to have the symptoms, or at least milder versions but test negative.
Im a bit sceptical on this bit, I must admit.

There are huge numbers of viruses that can cause things like dry coughs and a fever. An ordinary cold can do this. I suspect a lot of the people with mild symptoms but who test negative, actually have a cold or something similar.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Im a bit sceptical on this bit, I must admit.

There are huge numbers of viruses that can cause things like dry coughs and a fever. An ordinary cold can do this. I suspect a lot of the people with mild symptoms but who test negative, actually have a cold or something similar.

Maybe, but the point of that podcast is that when covid invades our cells it produces proteins that are similar to other coronaviruses such as those that ccan ause colds. Fragments of these proteins are presented on the surface of the cell, so a T-cell previously produced for the cold variant might well activate when it detects the same proteins produced from covid-19 RNA. So whilst it is entirely possible that some people with symptoms had a bad cold or flu, others may have had covid but not produced enough anti-bodies to show up on the tests.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
As I already posted there are some interesting ideas here but nothing is proven.

I am particularly concerned by the rather Trumpian attitude of some on here automatically attaching words such as "discredited" to Prof Ferguson - OK he broke the rules but he admitted responsibility and stepped down, unlike one far more serious offender we can all think of. That doesn't automatically make his work invalid, and some of the modelling was intended to predict what could have happened under a certain set of assumptions including no lockdown rather than effect of what was actually done - with what was known at the time the figure of 400,000 deaths if nothing was done seems entirely credible. To me the inclusion of personal attacks on the individuals behind the arguments suggest a lack of factual evidence to address the arguments themselves.

BBC have produced a story this morning on the risk of a second wave: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53113785
"The evidence is the vast majority of people are still susceptible, in essence if we lift all measures we're back to where we were in February," says Dr Adam Kucharski from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

"It's almost like starting from scratch again."
So this interviewee is either unaware or puts no weight on the theory of increased immunity.

The people in the video are at pains to make clear this is only a supposition with no evidence whatever as to the size of the various groups they postulate. They don't do themselves any favours by putting them on a pie chart, which to someone who's not listening to the detail suggests they add up to about 50%. Let's have some proper research before calling for action based on what is actually a very shaky foundation.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Many men have seemed to exude a casual indifference and unwillingness to comprehend both personal danger and particularly the danger they may pose to others.

If they were aged under about 50 with none of the listed medical conditions, the personal danger posed by riding the bicycle they were riding (particularly in London traffic) was considerably in excess of the personal danger from COVID19. Perspective is needed.

These countries are all close to China and probably would have had quite a few tourists from China in January before the extent of the pandemic become clear.

It is I believe known that there are 2 strains of the virus, one worse than the other, and I do wonder from this if the weaker one "went around" earlier and may be what I and other people I know who had similar symptoms had back in February and potentially earlier. There are a lot of reports of it, and the symptoms of it are really quite rare in terms of how they combine and are actually nothing like what you get from a cold, though are a bit more like flu.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
That doesn't automatically make his work invalid...
Plenty of people made it clear his model was very flawed

Professor Neil Ferguson's computer coding was derided as “totally unreliable” by leading figures, who warned it was “something you wouldn’t stake your life on".
The scientist whose calculations about the potentially devastating impact of the coronavirus directly led to the countrywide lockdown has been criticised in the past for flawed research.

BBC have produced a story this morning on the risk of a second wave: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53113785
But that doesn't say anything to suggest we don't have some immunity provided by T cells. I won't comment further on the article because that's a whole new topic.
So this interviewee is either unaware or puts no weight on the theory of increased immunity.
I don't think anyone with any credibility still believes that the only people with any immunity are those with antibodies.
The people in the video are at pains to make clear this is only a supposition with no evidence whatever as to the size of the various groups they postulate. They don't do themselves any favours by putting them on a pie chart, which to someone who's not listening to the detail suggests they add up to about 50%. Let's have some proper research before calling for action based on what is actually a very shaky foundation.
They make it clear that we do not know what they add up to, but it looks likely that the results could be significant and could vary considerably among different populations, which would go some way to explain why different populations are affected to different degrees.
.... Perspective is needed.
It is needed, but is lacking among some, sadly.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I don't think anyone with any credibility still believes that the only people with any immunity are those with antibodies.
You're saying that you believe two non-specialists who heavily qualify their theory as being that but nothing more, rather than someone the BBC must consider to have some expertise in the subject? You may disagree with the statement but not engaging with it suggests a worrying case of filter bubble.

There are people such as the WHO still reminding us that there is not even any firm evidence that antibodies confer immunity, let alone the various less well understood mechanisms under discussion here.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
You're saying that you believe two non-specialists who heavily qualify their theory as being that but nothing more, rather than someone the BBC must consider to have some expertise in the subject? You may disagree with the statement but not engaging with it suggests a worrying case of filter bubble.

There are people such as the WHO still reminding us that there is not even any firm evidence that antibodies confer immunity, let alone the various less well understood mechanisms under discussion here.
I'm convinced the WHO are playing the safety card constantly looking at worst case scenarios so it can't come back and bite them.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
You're saying that you believe two non-specialists who heavily qualify their theory as being that but nothing more, rather than someone the BBC must consider to have some expertise in the subject? You may disagree with the statement but not engaging with it suggests a worrying case of filter bubble.
What's your definition of a "specialist" in this field? Do viriologists such as Angela Rasmussen not count as specialists your view?
There are people such as the WHO still reminding us that there is not even any firm evidence that antibodies confer immunity, let alone the various less well understood mechanisms under discussion here.
Their bar for "firm evidence" is well beyond the bar of reasonable doubt. All the evidence presented so far suggests that there is a good case for immunity and this bodes well for a vaccine.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
You're saying that you believe two non-specialists who heavily qualify their theory as being that but nothing more, rather than someone the BBC must consider to have some expertise in the subject? You may disagree with the statement but not engaging with it suggests a worrying case of filter bubble.

There are people such as the WHO still reminding us that there is not even any firm evidence that antibodies confer immunity, let alone the various less well understood mechanisms under discussion here.
Adam Kucharski hasn't really changed his line at any point in this whole debate. Basically if the BBC want a quote to fit a story on the topic "stay indoors, fear it fear it" they go to him or Devi Sridhar. The fact that they are always on doesn't mean they are the two most respected people in their field, or that they are up to date on new research, or that what they have to say is news. They are simply the people the BBC have determined will most readily and reliably provide "balance" against the growing weight of evidence that we are doing the wrong thing.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Adam Kucharski hasn't really changed his line at any point in this whole debate. Basically if the BBC want a quote to fit a story on the topic "stay indoors, fear it fear it" they go to him or Devi Sridhar. The fact that they are always on doesn't mean they are the two most respected people in their field, or that they are up to date on new research, or that what they have to say is news. They are simply the people the BBC have determined will most readily and reliably provide "balance" against the growing weight of evidence that we are doing the wrong thing.
The BBC story doesn't even mention the theories being discussed on this thread, so the quotation of Kucharski isn't needed in the interest of balance. So they are biased, badly informed, or put no weight on the theories of increased immunity. I'd prefer to believe the conclusions of a neutral news organization than those of some people on the net who are unshamedly pushing a particular point of view.

People have every right to publicise credible theories that could make an important difference, but they themselves admit they are no more than theories. In view of the huge potential consequences if the authorities get this type of decision wrong, it must be based on firm evidence.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
The BBC story doesn't even mention the theories being discussed on this thread, so the quotation of Kucharski isn't needed in the interest of balance. So they are biased, badly informed, or put no weight on the theories of increased immunity. I'd prefer to believe the conclusions of a neutral news organization than those of some people on the net who are unshamedly pushing a particular point of view.

People have every right to publicise credible theories that could make an important difference, but they themselves admit they are no more than theories. In view of the huge potential consequences if the authorities get this type of decision wrong, it must be based on firm evidence.
I don't want to get into a debate about the credibility of the BBC here, but they did run an article which mentioned the importance of T cells in fighting this virus

It has been found those with the most severe form of the disease have extremely low numbers of an immune cell called a T-cell....

...This research has also provided insight into the specific ways in which this disease interacts with the immune system, that Prof Hayday says will be vital as scientists around the world look for clinically valuable information....

"...The exact reason for this disruption - the spanner in the works of the T-cell system - is not at all clear to us....
Since then, more information has become available, but I believe the likes of WHO, BBC and others will not want to report on it until the findings are clearer. However that doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I don't want to get into a debate about the credibility of the BBC here, but they did run an article which mentioned the importance of T cells in fighting this virus


Since then, more information has become available, but I believe the likes of WHO, BBC and others will not want to report on it until the findings are clearer. However that doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
That article is saying that Covid destroys the T-cells of severely ill people, or possibly that those people don't have enough T-cells to combat Covid. They don't know which but I agree that perhaps a more is known a month on.

I'd say "the findings are clearer" would mean either drawing a conclusion that "the evidence is there to support this theory" or dismissing the idea because it has been disproved. Nothing I have seen on the thread says that the theory is any more than that, and nobody on here has produced any evidence that people even have Covid immunity without antibodies, let alone how many. Therefore it's not something that is yet able to be used as a basis for big and dangerous decisions.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
BBC have produced a story this morning on the risk of a second wave: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53113785

So this interviewee is either unaware or puts no weight on the theory of increased immunity.

The people in the video are at pains to make clear this is only a supposition with no evidence whatever as to the size of the various groups they postulate. They don't do themselves any favours by putting them on a pie chart, which to someone who's not listening to the detail suggests they add up to about 50%. Let's have some proper research before calling for action based on what is actually a very shaky foundation.

I actually raised a complaint about that article, it seems they're asking clinicians questions about epidemiology, which seems a little like asking a mechanic to plan a new ring-road.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
"The evidence is the vast majority of people are still susceptible, in essence if we lift all measures we're back to where we were in February," says Dr Adam Kucharski from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

"It's almost like starting from scratch again.

I don't see that this directly contradicts the theory of previous immunity as has been suggested in this thread. If cold viruses offer immunity that will have been the case since day zero - so saying that we would be starting from scratch is not unreasonable. It's one thing to be interested in the emerging research and to hope that the picture is better than it appears from some of the numbers that get thrown around, but to take action on the basis of an unproven assumption that a large proportion of the population has acquired unseen immunity would be madness. (I do hope that Mr Cummings doesn't get to see the video!) :s
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
OK how else would you explain what's happening in Stockholm? They didn't lock down; Prof Ferguson predicted huge numbers of deaths and that never happened.

If there is no existing immunity, why didn't London - which was the worst affected city in the UK - continue to have large numbers of cases? If the only people with any immunity are those with antibodies, why did the rate of infections slow down in London before anywhere else?

And we must not forget that in East and South London many many people did not take much notice of the lockdown which makes this even more bizarre
Of course many people will be immune to the Virus.
2 months ago my missus had the most ghastly D and V virus which she believes might be Covid.
I had nothing at all
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
D&V is probably more likely food poisoning or norovirus. Diarrhoea can be a symptom of COVID but it usually isn't, despite the whole silly bog roll thing.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
And we must not forget that in East and South London many many people did not take much notice of the lockdown which makes this even more bizarre
Of course many people will be immune to the Virus.
2 months ago my missus had the most ghastly D and V virus which she believes might be Covid.
I had nothing at all
I know someone that definitely had it, he had a positive test result. His girlfriend was stuck in the house with him for seven days and had no symptoms whatsoever. My Mrs probably had it a few weeks ago. She felt awful for three days. Neither the kids nor I had any symptoms. There must be a lot of people out there that can fight it off without problem.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
D&V is probably more likely food poisoning or norovirus. Diarrhoea can be a symptom of COVID but it usually isn't, despite the whole silly bog roll thing.

We can never be sure as despite the fact she works in a GPs surgery the BMA and the local Health authority are bickering as to who is going to do Immune tests with the predictable result that no tests on any staff have been done
Her sister who lives up north was tested and had positive immunity without realising she had had CV19 .
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
592
D&V is probably more likely food poisoning or norovirus. Diarrhoea can be a symptom of COVID but it usually isn't, despite the whole silly bog roll thing.
The bog roll thing was nothing to do with people thinking you needed it for symptoms of the virus.

A rumour started that all bog roll was made with raw materials from China and that because of the situation there at the time, exports from there were banned. This led to panic buying of toilet paper, which actually started in Australia and then spread here.

No amount of toilet paper factory owners explaining that all the raw materials came from the UK made any difference. Fights in the aisles ensued.
 

scarby

Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
745
Latest studies from Karolinska Institute suggest public immmunity is higher than previously supposed:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-immunity-covid-higher-shown.html
"Our results indicate that public immunity to COVID-19 is probably significantly higher than antibody tests have suggested," says Professor Hans-Gustaf Ljunggren at the Center for Infectious Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and co-senior author. "If this is the case, it is of course very good news from a public health perspective."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scarby

Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
745
Despite the fact that Stockholmers are crowded at outdoor restaurants and beaches, the spread in the capital is decreasing. This is according to Infectious Diseases Stockholm manager Per Follin, who does not rule out that Stockholmers may have built up some immunity in the population.

He tells national daily paper DN:
If a larger proportion of the population has protection, it may be a contributing cause of the decline.

The number of people requiring hospital care is significantly declining in Stockholm. On Tuesday, no covid patients were cared for at Danderyd Hospital's intensive care unit and the hospital has returned to normal.

The confirmed cases are increasing overall, but this is because more mildly ill patients are now being tested than before, Follin explains.

The decline cannot be explained by any new measures against the spread of infection. Rather, the capital's residents appear to have become worse at following the authorities' recommendations, according to Follin. People move more outside, fewer work from home and the media has reported on how people are crowded at outdoor dining and bathing places.

Follin does not want to speculate on how many people have been ill in Stockholm, but believes that Stockholmers may have built up an immunity in the population. That a considerable proportion of the population has protection, with antibodies or T-cells, may be a contributing cause of the decline.

The so-called T-cells are highlighted in a new study from the Karolinska Institute, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. The researchers estimate that a significantly larger proportion of people with covid-19 have developed T-cells against the virus compared to those with antibodies. The latest survey in Stockholm showed that 17 percent of those tested had antibodies to the virus.

The study on T-cells did not come as a surprise to Follin.

It was a confirmation of what we have been waiting for. T-cells are part of our immune system and usually give immunity. But antibodies are easiest to measure.

Link to article in DN (in Swedish): https://www.dn.se/sthlm/smittskydds...nskar-i-stockholm-kan-bero-pa-viss-immunitet/
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
@scarby that's very interesting, thanks for posting.

The BBC also reported this a couple of days ago:
For every person testing positive for antibodies, two were found to have specific T-cells which identify and destroy infected cells.

This was seen even in people who had mild or symptomless cases of Covid-19.

Prof Danny Altmann at Imperial College London described the study as "robust, impressive and thorough" and said it added to a growing body of evidence that "antibody testing alone underestimates immunity".

Clearly more work needs to be done, but it's certainly very encouraging so far.

The suggestion that the only people who were exposed to the virus are people who test positive in an antibody test is very clearly untrue; I don't think anyone with any credibility is claiming that any more.

As a forum member told me, "immunity isn’t an all or nothing situation, we can have partial immunity,, we can have immunity that’s directed at the correct target but for some reason isn’t effective. Also I’d suggest that just because the current antibody tests don’t detect antibody in a proportion of individuals doesn’t mean it isn’t there. We could be looking for the wrong antibody, the antibody response to an agent typically involves a cloud of different antibodies directed at different parts of it"
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Yet more evidence on the importance of T cells is emerging.

It's significant.

This isn't just one rogue study now, it's being increasingly documented.

I was saying this months ago, but according to some despite having a PhD in immunology I was unqualified to comment!
There is a video attached to the tweet; I recommend anyone who is able to watch the video does so.

Further tweets in the thread:
What I think it all means: -Antibody tests significantly underestimate the number of people infected -There is considerable innate immunity from old coronaviruses - Sadly no easy test for T cells It's very good news and makes an awful lot of sense.
It explains how a one person can develop antibodies, but not their partner - there are so many examples like this. I'm sure that far more people have had the virus and more people have some protection to the virus than estimated. Very encouraging.


Also this article is worth a read:

“Just because you can’t detect antibodies in their blood doesn’t mean there’s no immune response,”

While antibodies may wane past the limit of detection, that doesn’t mean they go away entirely. And even a very low level could be protective. “What‘s important when you’ve been exposed to the virus is how quickly you can ramp up those antibodies,” Permar says. That involves a whole army of cells, which store knowledge of each new pathogen they encounter. There are B cells, which help coax those virus-specific antibodies into existence, plus killer T cells, which can learn to obliterate infected cells. Helper T cells help orchestrate the whole process. “You have multiple arms of the immune response,” says Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University who studies respiratory viruses. “It’s like the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.” If one branch stands down, the body hasn’t necessarily lost its germ-fighting capacity.
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Now this is VERY interesting.....

The theory that I have had for a couple of months now is that up to 75% of the population are not susceptible to Covid, it's the only thing I can think of which explains all the death rate graph curves previously mentioned.



This BBC article postulates that T cells etc mean that possibly up to 60% of people are not susceptible to Covid, not that much different from my predicted "up to 75%". It all fits, but time will tell. If it is the case then this also proves that all these lock downs and social distancing (and those soddin' masks) have achieved very little, certainly in countries already heavily exposed to Covid.
And that's before taking into account there massively negative social and economic effects.....

Rather than steer the Sweden thread O/T, I thought I'd respond in here as its probably more appropriate.

This is why is it vitally important that decision makers, as well as the wider public must never focus in on a single statistic or single measurement when looking at making potentially highly disruptive policies when in the midst of a pandemic. Our immune systems are way more complex than just anti-body producing systems, they deploy various techniques to combat viral threats, some of which are described in the video further upthread. So emerging evidence that some, potentially many people already have genetic memory of coronaviruses which could mean that their immune systems might be able to recognise and deal with Covid-19 before the need for antibody production is potentially a game changer, or at least it should be.

This might be the heard immunity that was much berated by many at the start. Covid-19 is not entirely novel, it comes from a family of viruses known to science, and it seems our immune systems. Although new in its genetic structure, it uses a lot of the proteins its forebears use, and it is these proteins that might just be giving many people at least some level of pre-immunity, even before the virus was discovered it seems. So we need some more urgent research into just what proportion of the population might potentially have some level of immunity, even if it is enough to trigger the immune system. Because knowing what these levels might actually be will not only completely throw off previous spread modelling, but they might also offer more insight into who in our populations are most at risk (and we have a lot of this data already), and how we might be further able to build on the incredible work done on treatment of those worst affected.

In short, if a significant amount of people have coronavirus genetic memory residing in their T-cells, we might actually be able to totally rethink how we approach virus management going forward.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top