[Snorlax94]

The study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6

An article in Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhase...73dd4272e1

The first unexpected finding is that CAT-scans of the lung showed that two-thirds of those with no clinical signs of Covid-19 had what are called ground-glass opacity abnormalities typical of Covid-19 in at least one lung, and one-third showed ground-glass opacities in both lungs. In simple terms, SARS-CoV-2 is damaging the lungs of the majority who seem symptom-free. The long term health effects of such injuries may be apparent in later life.

The first surprise is that roughly 20 percent of people in both groups made no detectable IgG response to SARS-CoV-2. For IgM, the number was even lower. Between 30 to 40 percent of those infected had no detectable levels of IgM. That raises the question of how the virus is cleared (as it eventually was in all those studied) without robust antibody responses. We can speculate that may be due to a non-specific response from cells of the myeloid lineage or via a T-cell mediated immune response.

These are the most consequential results of this study. The finding that some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 infection do not make antibodies, added to the observation that neutralizing antibodies begin to drop noticeably a few weeks post-infection, raises the possibility that infection by SARS-CoV-2 does not establish long-lasting immunity, at least for those without symptoms or only mildly ill, more than 80% of all those infected by SARS-CoV-2 

So people here can help digest this study, but my initial reaction is 
1) F**k!
2) There is even more reason now not to become complacent and to be even more careful to never get infected
3) aren’t there enormous implications for society? Even more now we should be screaming, good lord, stop going around without masks. Quit screwing around in massive crowds, stop demanding to have massive gatherings indoors, stop starting fights in airports and stores because you don’t want to wear a mask, stop being stupid.
4) and kind of the least important in the big scheme of things, but since this is a sports fan board — This is why many wisely have insisted all along we do not yet understand the disease, and immunity, and we certainly should not be telling young athletes, wink wink, maybe it’d be advantageous if y’all got sick now. Because it will not be advantageous in any way.

These recent findings feel a bit like a worst-case scenario.

[Snorlax94]

The study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6

An article in Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhase...73dd4272e1

The first unexpected finding is that CAT-scans of the lung showed that two-thirds of those with no clinical signs of Covid-19 had what are called ground-glass opacity abnormalities typical of Covid-19 in at least one lung, and one-third showed ground-glass opacities in both lungs. In simple terms, SARS-CoV-2 is damaging the lungs of the majority who seem symptom-free. The long term health effects of such injuries may be apparent in later life.

The first surprise is that roughly 20 percent of people in both groups made no detectable IgG response to SARS-CoV-2. For IgM, the number was even lower. Between 30 to 40 percent of those infected had no detectable levels of IgM. That raises the question of how the virus is cleared (as it eventually was in all those studied) without robust antibody responses. We can speculate that may be due to a non-specific response from cells of the myeloid lineage or via a T-cell mediated immune response.

These are the most consequential results of this study. The finding that some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 infection do not make antibodies, added to the observation that neutralizing antibodies begin to drop noticeably a few weeks post-infection, raises the possibility that infection by SARS-CoV-2 does not establish long-lasting immunity, at least for those without symptoms or only mildly ill, more than 80% of all those infected by SARS-CoV-2 

So people here can help digest this study, but my initial reaction is 
1) F**k!
2) There is even more reason now not to become complacent and to be even more careful to never get infected
3) aren’t there enormous implications for society? Even more now we should be screaming, good lord, stop going around without masks. Quit screwing around in massive crowds, stop demanding to have massive gatherings indoors, stop starting fights in airports and stores because you don’t want to wear a mask, stop being stupid.
4) and kind of the least important in the big scheme of things, but since this is a sports fan board — This is why many wisely have insisted all along we do not yet understand the disease, and immunity, and we certainly should not be telling young athletes, wink wink, maybe it’d be advantageous if y’all got sick now. Because it will not be advantageous in any way.

These recent findings feel a bit like a worst-case scenario.

[M T]

The good news is that those who recovered fought off the disease somehow.  Whether that mechanism works better, the same, or less, next time is unknown.

It struck me that if no vaccine is found and there is little conferred immunity, today's 20-year old may be more likely to die of this disease over time than today's 70-year old.  Conceivably, life expectancy could drop sharply.

Pray for a vaccine and that we effectively wipe this disease off the face of the earth like we've done for a few other killers, before it develops more diversity and potentially more lethality.

[M T]

The good news is that those who recovered fought off the disease somehow.  Whether that mechanism works better, the same, or less, next time is unknown.

It struck me that if no vaccine is found and there is little conferred immunity, today's 20-year old may be more likely to die of this disease over time than today's 70-year old.  Conceivably, life expectancy could drop sharply.

Pray for a vaccine and that we effectively wipe this disease off the face of the earth like we've done for a few other killers, before it develops more diversity and potentially more lethality.

[dabigv13]

If infection with the disease doesn't confer long term immunity, it's not very likely a vaccine would either. 

That being said, just because a robust antibody response isn't always seen after a first exposure doesn't mean a patient wouldn't have some long term immunity. Memory T cells and B cells would mean a second exposure most likely would be less severe than the first.

On ground glass opacities, a small unilateral one is unlikely to have any functional significance. The sort of thing we see not infrequently on a chest CT scan most likely as a sequela of some remote infection, and don't pay much mind too.

Finally, this is a small study, from a single center. 37 patients is not something we should let guide any decision making about this disease. Need more robust studies.

[dabigv13]

If infection with the disease doesn't confer long term immunity, it's not very likely a vaccine would either. 

That being said, just because a robust antibody response isn't always seen after a first exposure doesn't mean a patient wouldn't have some long term immunity. Memory T cells and B cells would mean a second exposure most likely would be less severe than the first.

On ground glass opacities, a small unilateral one is unlikely to have any functional significance. The sort of thing we see not infrequently on a chest CT scan most likely as a sequela of some remote infection, and don't pay much mind too.

Finally, this is a small study, from a single center. 37 patients is not something we should let guide any decision making about this disease. Need more robust studies.