Have you had the opportunity/availability to get an antibody test?
Everyone I've heard with such an anecdote has received multiple negative antibody tests, anecdata! (Only two people I've known)
Everyone I've heard with such an anecdote has received multiple negative antibody tests, anecdata! (Only two people I've known)
Are there any data available to support this claim? That would mean that the virus is cleared by the innate immune system and not the adaptive, but it is still a pretty bold statement.
The last I read (a Nature Genetics study, if I recall) was that the antibody quantity was lower in milder cases (but with a large inter-person variability).
> That would mean that the virus is cleared by the innate immune system and not the adaptive
Not necessarily, because adaptive antibodies produced through previous exposure to coronaviruses can also bind to covid19.
> Nevertheless, rare but recurring RBD-specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity were found in all individuals tested, suggesting that a vaccine designed to elicit such antibodies could be broadly effective.
Very low levels, but still produced. (Note that I still have to dig through the paper.)
In addition:
> Plasmas collected an average of 39 days after the onset of symptoms had variable half-maximal neutralizing titers ranging from undetectable in 33% to below 1:1000 in 79%
Of course this is only a single study and more research is needed, but I notice people draw way too strong conclusions from studies that show low seropositivity prevalence.
I would still like a way to prove or disprove it though, and same as you, anyone I’ve talked to about it says the antibody tests just aren’t good enough yet to prove anything conclusively.
Even the data we do have available sucks. There’s a bunch of States and counties which still aren’t reporting or aren’t reliably reporting recoveries which is artificially inflating the active case count in the United States.
On a whim, I decided to go get the abbott antibody test to see if it was Covid-19, because it sure seemed like it might have been. But no, negative.
In Bergamo it's closer to that from early data, but for example in Milano it might be from 4 to 10 (but in this case the sample was blood donors, so skewed towards younger and healthy).
As a counter-anecdote, I know two people from a less hit area, both of whom had fever, and none of them had any antibodies (like, the test said 0.0 for both IgM and IgG).
If that's true then my argument still holds. How can 80% not get antibodies if they were detected in 57% of large random sample of some population?
I agree with that part, even if the sample was not random.