With coronavirus antibodies fading fast, vaccine hopes fade, too

Disturbing new revelations that permanent immunity to the coronavirus may not be possible have jeopardized vaccine development and reinforced a decision by scientists at UCSF and affiliated laboratories to focus exclusively on treatments.

Several recent studies conducted around the world indicate that the human body does not retain the antibodies that build up during infections, meaning there may be no lasting immunity to COVID-19 after people recover.

Strong antibodies are also crucial in the development of vaccines. So molecular biologists fear the only way left to control the disease may be to treat the symptoms after people are infected to prevent the most debilitating effects, including inflammation, blood clots and death.

“I just don’t see a vaccine coming anytime soon,” said Nevan Krogan, a molecular biologist and director of UCSF’s Quantitative Biosciences Institute, which works in partnership with 100 research laboratories. “People do have antibodies, but the antibodies are waning quickly.” And if antibodies diminish, “then there is a good chance the immunity from a vaccine would wane too.”

The latest bad news came from scientists at King’s College of London, whose study of 90 COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom found antibody levels peaked three weeks after the onset of symptoms and then dramatically declined.

Potent antibodies were found in 60% of the patients, according to the study, but only 17% retained the same potency three months later. In some cases, the antibodies disappeared completely, said the study which was published as a preprint Saturday, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

The report is the latest in a growing chain of evidence that immunity to COVID-19 is short-lived.

A Chinese study published June 18 in the journal Nature Medicine also showed coronavirus antibodies taking a nosedive. The study of 74 patients, conducted by Chongqing Medical University, a branch of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, showed that more than 90% exhibited sharp declines in the number of antibodies within two to three months after infection.

There is still hope that the remaining antibodies will bestow some immunity, but infectious disease specialists around the world were surprised and discouraged by the rapid reduction observed in the studies. If the numbers continue dropping after three months, it could mean people will be susceptible to infection by the coronavirus year after year.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/With-coronavirus-antibodies-fading-fast-focus-15414533.php

T-cell immunity and the truth about Covid-19 in Sweden

We hear a lot about Sweden’s experience of Covid-19, with the New York Times declaring this week that that country is now “the world’s cautionary tale.”

But what’s it really like on the ground?

Dr Soo Aleman has been both on the front lines of the Covid-19 epidemic as a senior physician at Stockholm’s leading Karolinska hospital, and on the research side, as Assistant Professor at the Karolinska Institute and one of a group that last week published new data around T-cell immunity.

I talked to her about the findings of that study, and how it matches what she is seeing in her hospital. Have a watch above.

Key quotes:

• “Intensive care units are getting empty, the wards are getting empty, we are really seeing a decrease — and that despite that people are really loosening up. The beaches are crowded, social distancing is not kept very well … but still the numbers are really decreasing. That means that something else is happening – we are actually getting closer to herd immunity. I can’t really see another reason.”
• “I can’t say if the Swedish approach was right or wrong – I think we can say that in one or two years when we are looking back. You have to look at the mortality over the whole period.”
• “I don’t think that we have more new cases, I think we are just detecting more cases”
• “We found that if you have a mild case you can be negative for antibodies afterwards … in those almost all of them had strong T-cell activity. This study says that there are cases that you can have a strong T-cell response even though you have not had antibodies, meaning that you have encountered the virus and built up immunity.”

Someone way more well versed in epidemiology than me would need to answer this question:  Is the reason they're focusing on antibodies rather than T-cells because vaccine development is based on anti-bodies?  

I do know that once T-cells are activated they're activated. They may "hide" but if the immune system recognizes a threat they send those little soldiers in to deal with it.

Perhaps Big Pharma is looking at this battle the wrong way?

So AstraZenica.  Not Moderna.

forgive me but I have no faith in a viable vaccine being developed...

Not in the short them at any rate......

And doubtful even in the long term

Giving hope to the masses.....

Just my opinion.....

And a question:

Why does the body "shed "the antibodies......

And immunity drop..?

We've still a lot to learn about this "NOVEL"virus.

Technophobe wrote: If they last for years, that is fine. If they last for months, frequent boosters would work and we could manage the problem. If they last for just weeks, we're screw*d!

I think the problem there, Techno, would be the cost.  If you had to keep reinforcing the vaccines a couple or several times a year to keep everyone immunized, and the virus kept mutating, the vaccine program would be very expensive.  Even treating people using antibodies would be problematic, I would think, and maybe not-so-effective.  And you have a hard time, at least here in the States, getting most people on board with a yearly flu jab.  People would for sure get vaccine fatigue after a year or two if they had to keep coming in say, three or four times a year.  I can't imagine a lot of compliance.