(04-27-2020 08:08 AM)JMURocks Wrote: As best I can tell, this is not true, or if it is, it is an extremely rare occurrence. This is based on rumor, and most likely explanation is that some people were declared cured before they were fully recovered.
If this happened frequently the curve wouldn’t flatten and this thing would keep growing exponentially, particularly given the large number of people testing positive for antibodies now.
JMURocks, I'm quoting your comment as a way to address what we seem to know about serology testing and immunity right now; not as a particular call-out or refutation of what you're saying. (Again, I'm not an expert, just someone trying to research using reliable sources.) I think you're right to point out that there's not evidence to suggest that there is
no immunity in those who test positive for antibodies.
I believe I've said this before in the thread, or maybe I've said it in a different setting, but part of the issue with COVID-19 is that we don't know a lot about it. A cursory search of the CDC's website mentions serology testing and/or immunity in very limited ways.
In the FDA's guidance to healthcare providers, it only mentions serology testing as a way to determine if someone has been exposed to COVID-19 or if they've been symptomatic, have they recovered. It also mentions, many times, that serology tests have "limitations" and goes on to say, "In the future, this may potentially be used to help determine, together with other clinical data, whether these individuals are less susceptible to infection." "May" is the operative word there.
Some of the questions that still exist about immunity are:
1. Does having antibodies actually provide immunity from future COVID-19 infection?
2. If there is immunity, how long does it last? Does it extend to all people who have antibodies, or just some? (For example, asymptomatic vs. symptomatic)
3. What is the extent of the immunity? (Does it hold up against repeated exposures? Does it hold up against prolonged exposure?)
4. Looking to the future, does the virus mutate quickly enough that we see multiple strains like the flu?
Unfortunately the research just takes time, which is frustrating in a situation like this. Many of the early studies and data have come out of China and I think many people would agree that it's fair to be skeptical of those results without dismissing them entirely.
We also have to be skeptical of the tests that have been created rapidly to address COVID-19.
The Mayo Clinic recently published an article warning about the implications of false negative rates in COVID-19 testing. (A false negative test is a test that incorrectly reads negative.) An infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic is quoted in the article as saying, "With a population of 40 million people, 2 million false-negative results would be expected in California with comprehensive testing. Even if only 1% of the population was tested, 20,000 false-negative results would be expected." While that comment was specifically pointed toward COVID-19 testing, it's fair to believe that it extends to serology testing, too.
I think the thing to be careful of is people saying that "antibodies = immunity" and "immunity = go about your business." (I don't think that's what you were saying in your post, it's something I've seen a lot of talk about elsewhere so I thought I'd address it.)
/
Will pro and college sports be cancelled this Fall?
