First of all, antibody levels are *supposed* to drop after the infection clears. Imagine if they didn't: Your blood would be a sludge of every type of antibody to every pathogen you've ever encountered. Hence my surprise yesterday at this paper 2/x https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1321078975033151489
In the British study, in 27% of people who were positive at first, they dropped below detection limit. But the test has 84% sensitivity, and we know not everyone makes really high levels of antibodies after coronavirus infection (although nearly everyone makes some) 3/x
In other words, it's not really a surprise that some people's levels drop too low to be detected. But that does not mean that
a) they have none at all
b) they don't have memory B cells that can't make more as needed
c) they don't have T helper and T killer cells. 4/x
Also, and this is an important point, this study is looking at seroprevalence at a population level, not at an individual level. Among individuals, studies from Portugal, Iceland and NYC have now shown stable levels for months. (Links in the article) 5/x
If somehow the immune response is still flimsy, despite all these caveats, that may still be enough. In monkey studies a little bit of immunity went a long way toward blunting serious illness, if not preventing infection altogether. 6/x
None of this means anything for vaccines. We know vaccines can be tweaked to elicit immune responses much stronger than from natural infection. We'll know for sure when vaccine trials are complete, but for now, there is no reason to worry--at least not about this study. 7/x
You can follow @apoorva_nyc.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: