We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Absolutely Davde, it is indicative not conclusive and that is recognised in the caveats. But so far it's been summarised as more of a confident outcome than the report itself concludes. They are still saying 'we don't know enough '. In fact they know more than they are saying. If you take the secondary research (other related and recent evidence) into account we know it's 'extremely rare' to get it twice (Chief Scientist of the WHO). It's like the hypothesis is based on antibody detection equals immunity. The question about catching it twice has we assume only been vindicated by this study- no-one had it twice- yet again another big study says the same thing. And they conclude- we don't know if antibodies confer immunity? What? We do already know, visibility of antibodies wane after months unless we are re-exposed. And again, this study acknowledges they don't wane with re-exposure- health workers and care workers 'who have probably been continuously exposed' have visible antibodies. I am waiting for a higher level of scrutiny on this. Come on journos. Do your job.
If you wanted to determine the reduction in antibodies would you not test the same people over time? Taking 3 seperate surveillance studies and linking prevelance changes to antibody reduction seems to be indicative rather than conclusive to me!
What is never stated in these rare, isolated reports of catching it twice is the severity of the secondary infection.
Of course you can be positive for the virus again but if you have, at the very least, B cell memory you are far more likely to have a less severe illness as your body will be able to ramp up the immunological response quickly.
If we were talking about immunocompromised populations then that would be a completely different story. Too much half assed one dimensional scientific reporting going on. Antibody testing will be incredibly valuable for a long time especially delivered by the self at point of care rather than healthcare centres and diagnostic laboratories.
Second paragraph of the report says antibodies waning for all groups (different extents) except for health workers where antibodies remained visible. It's not really saying anything that we didn't know. The tests they used had only 82% sensitivity and have now been withdrawn by the MHRA.
So the two groups, health workers and care workers, who continue to be exposed continue to show active antibodies. No-one is getting it twice.
They will scrutinise these findings and recognise that more sensitive tests will be better to track the virus, antibodies work in tandem with T cells, B cell memory and antibodies and 24/40,000,000 people catching it twice, means that you are more likely to get struck by lightning than catch it twice. It does indicate you may only be able to categorically recognise you have had it, within 3 months of having it. But once you know that, you aren't getting it again as far as any measurable probability is concerned.