Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Main Forums > Latest News
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Covid 19:reinfections casts doubt on immunity
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Now tracking the new emerging South Africa Omicron Variant

Covid 19:reinfections casts doubt on immunity

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Covid 19:reinfections casts doubt on immunity
    Posted: October 12 2020 at 5:17pm
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.πŸ––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 12 2020 at 7:41pm

Same story, but BBC




BBC News - Covid reinfection: Man gets Covid twice and second hit 'more severe'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54512034

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.πŸ––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
CRS, DrPH View Drop Down
Expert Level Adviser
Expert Level Adviser


Joined: January 20 2014
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 26660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CRS, DrPH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 12 2020 at 11:43pm

Yep, humans don't seem to build up long-lasting immunitiy to coronaviruses.  That is why the common cold is such a bugger and we keep getting them. 

So, now we have a cold that might kill you.  Lovely.  This one won't go away, perhaps ever.  


CRS, DrPH
Back to Top
ksc View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: February 09 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 10995
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ksc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 12:49am

Looks like reinfections are pretty rare so far.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/10/dutch-researchers-report-first-death-from-covid-19-reinfection/

WORLD

Dutch researchers report first death from COVID-19 reinfection


Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 2:01am

Originally posted by ksc ksc wrote:

Looks like reinfections are pretty rare so far.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/10/dutch-researchers-report-first-death-from-covid-19-reinfection/


True But it's only early in this disease.......


Reuters: COVID-19 antibodies last at least three months; so do symptoms for many.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-science/covid-19-antibodies-last-at-least-three-months-so-do-symptoms-for-many-idUSKBN26X2GO?feedType=mktg&feedName=scienceNews&WT.mc_id=Partner-Google


We will have to wait and see what happens in the next few months.....when immunity ends....what happens then.....

Never been a cure for the common cold.....

Not over by a long long way 

Stay safe all πŸ˜·πŸ˜‰



Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.πŸ––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 2:23am
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.πŸ––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 2:40am

Re-infections are rare, but if you had survived this once (assuming you are neither desperate nor insane) you would move heaven and earth to avoid it again and it has been artificially held-back in most areas.

Here is a study from the Lancet:

Genomic evidence for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: a case stud

Published:October 12, 2020DOI:

 


Summary

Background

The degree of protective immunity conferred by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is currently unknown. As such, the possibility of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood. We describe an investigation of two instances of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the same individual.

Methods

A 25-year-old man who was a resident of Washoe County in the US state of Nevada presented to health authorities on two occasions with symptoms of viral infection, once at a community testing event in April, 2020, and a second time to primary care then hospital at the end of May and beginning of June, 2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from the patient at each presentation and twice during follow-up. Nucleic acid amplification testing was done to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection. We did next-generation sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 extracted from nasopharyngeal swabs. Sequence data were assessed by two different bioinformatic methodologies. A short tandem repeat marker was used for fragment analysis to confirm that samples from both infections came from the same individual.

Findings

The patient had two positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, the first on April 18, 2020, and the second on June 5, 2020, separated by two negative tests done during follow-up in May, 2020. Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 showed genetically significant differences between each variant associated with each instance of infection. The second infection was symptomatically more severe than the first.

Interpretation

Genetic discordance of the two SARS-CoV-2 specimens was greater than could be accounted for by short-term in vivo evolution. These findings suggest that the patient was infected by SARS-CoV-2 on two separate occasions by a genetically distinct virus. Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases. All individuals, whether previously diagnosed with COVID-19 or not, should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2. The implications of reinfections could be relevant for vaccine development and application.

Funding

Nevada IDEA Network of Biomedical Research, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (National Institutes of Health).

Introduction

Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leads to a detectable immune response, but the susceptibility of previously infected individuals to reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood. SARS-CoV-2 infection results in generation of neutralising antibodies in patients.1 However, the degree to which this immune response indicates a protective immunity to subsequent infection with SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been elucidated. In studies of immunity to other coronaviruses,2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 loss of immunity can occur within 1–3 years. Cases of primary illness due to infection followed by a discrete secondary infection or illness with the same biological agent can best be ascertained as distinct infection events by genetic analysis of the agents associated with each illness event. Reports of secondary infection events with SARS-CoV-2 have been published from Hong Kong,10 the Netherlands and Belgium,11 and Ecuador.12 We present a case report of an individual who had two distinct COVID-19 illnesses from genetically distinct SARS-CoV-2 agents.

Methods

 Case history

We present a case report of a 25-year-old male patient who was a resident of Washoe County in the US state of Nevada. The patient presented to a community testing event held by the Washoe County Health District on April 18, 2020. He had symptoms consistent with viral infection (sore throat, cough, headache, nausea, and diarrhoea), which had started on March 25, 2020 (figure 1). The patient had no history of clinically significant underlying conditions, and no indications of compromised immunity were identified. During isolation, the patient's symptoms resolved (reported on April 27, 2020) and he continued to feel well until May 28, 2020. On May 31, 2020, the patient sought care at an urgent care centre with self-reported fever, headache, dizziness, cough, nausea, and diarrhoea, at which time chest radiography was done and he was discharged home. 5 days later (on June 5, 2020), the patient presented to a primary care doctor and was found to be hypoxic with shortness of breath. He was instructed to go to the emergency department after provision of oxygen.
Figure thumbnail gr1
Figure 1Timeline of symptom onset, molecular diagnosis, and sequencing of specimensShow full caption
Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed, preprint servers (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and SSRN), and general news channels (via Google search) from June 30 to Sept 9, 2020, for reports of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection, using keywords including “reinfection”, “SARS-CoV-2”, and “secondary infection”. We restricted our search to publications in English. Three reports of reinfection, with variable symptom severity on reinfection, have been published worldwide to date, supporting the possibly for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.Added value of this studyWe present, to our knowledge, the first North American case of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. A 25-year-old man, who was a resident of Washoe County in the US state of Nevada, had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in April, 2020, followed by secondary infection within a period of around 6 weeks, in June, 2020. The second infection was symptomatically more severe than the first. Genomic analysis showed the two viral agents were genetically distinct. The patient's immune reaction in vitro was not assessed and, thus, conclusions cannot be made about the duration or degree of immunity.Implications of all the available evidenceReinfection with SARS-CoV-2 has been reported in at least four individuals worldwide. Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 does not necessarily translate to guaranteed total immunity. The implications of reinfections could be relevant for vaccine development and application. From a public health perspective, all individuals—whether previously diagnosed or not—must take identical precautions to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2. Further work is needed to assess immune reactions in vitro after reinfection.
This work was done under an emergency order by the Chief Medical Officer of the Division of Public and Behavioral Health for the State of Nevada. Ethics approval was waived by the University of Nevada, Reno Institutional Review Board. The patient provided written consent to publish this report.

 Procedures

Specimens were obtained from the patient by nasopharyngeal swab at the community testing event, during the period of isolation and recovery, and on presentation to hospital. Swabs were transported to the Nevada State Public Health Laboratory (Reno, NV, USA) in either viral transport medium or Aptima Multiswab Transport Media (Hologic, San Diego, CA, USA). Specimens were transported on cold packs and stored by refrigeration (4–8°C) for no longer than 72 h before nucleic acid extraction and subsequent real-time RT-PCR.Nucleic acid extraction was done using Omega Biotek MagBind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross, GA, USA), per manufacturer's instructions and with an elution volume of 100 μL. Aliquots of eluted RNA underwent real-time RT-PCR with either the Taqpath COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) Multiplex Assay (ThermoScientific, Waltham, MA, USA; 10 μL aliquots) or the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-qPCR Diagnostic Panel (CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA; 5 μL aliquots). Specimens transported on Aptima Multiswab Transport Media were tested by transcription-mediated amplification using the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 (Panther System) assay (Hologic, Marlborough, MA, USA). Assays were done according to their respective EUA procedures, unless otherwise indicated. For the Taqpath real-time RT-PCR test, the threshold for calling a specimen positive was reactivity of two of three target sequences, each with reactivity at a cycle threshold of less than 40·00. A positive or negative result on the Hologic Aptima assay was based on proprietary processes. Antibody testing was done with the Roche Elecsys Anti SARS-CoV-2 test (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA).For viral genomic sequencing, total RNA was extracted from nasopharyngeal swabs as described. 70 μL of extracted RNA was treated for 30 min at room temperature with Qiagen DNase I (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA) and then cleaned and concentrated with silica spin columns (Qiagen RNeasy MinElute; Qiagen) with a 12 μL water elution. A portion (7 μL) of this RNA was annealed to an rRNA inhibitor (Qiagen FastSelect rRNA HMR; Qiagen) and then reverse-transcribed (cDNA) using random hexamers. The synthesised DNA was strand-ligated and isothermally amplified into micrograms of DNA (Qiagen FX Single Cell RNA Library Kit; Qiagen). A portion (1 μg) of this amplified DNA was sheared and ligated to Illumina-compatible sequencing adapters, followed by six cycles of PCR amplification (KAPA HiFi HotStart Library Amplification Kit; Roche Sequencing and Life Science, Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, MA, USA) to enrich for library molecules with adapters at both ends. Next, these sequencing libraries were enriched for a sequence specific to SARS-CoV-2 using biotinylated oligonucleotide baits (myBaits Expert Virus, Arbor Biosciences, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). A further eight to 16 cycles of PCR were done after enrichment (98°C for 45 s, 98°C for 15 s, 60°C for 30 s, repeat for eight to 16 cycles, then 72°C for 60 s and 4°C to complete), and these SARS-CoV-2-enriched sequencing libraries were pooled and sequenced with an Illumina NextSeq 500 (Illumina, San Diego, CA USA) as paired-end 2β€ˆ×β€ˆ75 base pair reads using the NextSeq version 2.5 mid-output 150 cycle kit (Illumina).For bioinformatics analysis of the two SARS-CoV-2 agents (referred to herein as specimen A and specimen B), after sequencing of each library, FASTQ files were imported into CLC Genomics Workbench version 20.0.4 (Qiagen A/S, Vedbæk, Denmark) with the CLC Microbial Genomics Module, CLC Genome Finishing Module, and Biomedical Genomics Analysis. Briefly, reads were imported, trimmed, and mapped to National Center for Biotechnology Information SARS-CoV-2 reference sequence MN908947.3. The alignment was refined using the InDels and Structural Variants module, followed by the Local Realignment module. Variants were identified by a minimum coverage of five reads, minimum count of five, and minimum frequency of 70·0%.To ascertain repeatability of results, a second bioinformatics analysis was done using an independent process and open source tools. Potential reinfection sequence libraries were trimmed using Trimmomatic version 0.39, with the ILLUMINACLIP adapter-clipping setting 2:30:10:2:keepBothReads. Sequence pairs were aligned to the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome (MN908947.3) using Bowtie 2 version 2.3.13 PCR optical duplicates were flagged using Picard MarkDuplicates in picard-slim version 2.22.5. Variants were called for both samples in concert using Freebayes version 1.0.2, with ploidy settings of 1, a minimum allele frequency of 0·70, and a minimum depth of five reads for any variant call. The genome sequence of each sample was constructed using coverage statistics from BBtools pileup.sh and applyvariants.sh version 38.86, whereby only variants supported by coverage of five or more reads were written to bcftools consensus version 1.10.2, and all positions supported by fewer than five reads, whether reference or alternative, were replaced with Ns.14For phylogenetic analysis, the whole genome sequences of the isolates (specimen A and specimen B) were compared with those of 171 contemporaneous sequences from Nevada,15 the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain (MN908947.3), and one sequence derived from isolate USA-WA1/2020 (Bei Resources, Manassas, VA, USA). After trimming six 5′ uncalled bases (Ns) from specimen A and 98 Ns from specimen B, genomic sequences were aligned and related using NGPhylogeny.fr PhyML+SMS.16 Sequences were then first-aligned using MAFFT with automatic flavour selection.17 Informative regions were selected using Block Mapping and Gathering with Entropy, a sliding window size of 3, and maximum entropy of 0·5.18 Unrooted trees were constructed by PhyML with Smart Model Selection, the Akaike information criterion, and Subtree Pruning and Regrafting.19 Newick trees were visualised using Interactive Tree Of Live version 4 and rooted at the Wuhan reference strain.20 Major SARS-CoV-2 clade memberships were predicted using Nextclade.To confirm specimens A and B were from the same individual, the original swab specimens, transport media, and residual samples of extracted RNA supplied to the sequencing core facility underwent short tandem repeat (STR) analysis for identity comparison, by the Washoe County Sheriff's Forensic Science Division (Reno, NV, USA). 2 μL of extracted DNA was quantified using the Quantifiler Trio DNA Quantification Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) on the 7500 Real-Time PCR System and analysed with 7500 HID software version 1.3 (Applied Biosystems). Amplification of 24 GlobalFiler STR markers (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was accomplished on the ProFlex PCR Instrument (Thermo Fisher Scientific) for 29 cycles. The 3500xL Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) was used for fragment analysis of the amplified STR marker regions in conjunction with HID Data Collection Software version 4.0.1 (Applied Biosystems) and Genemapper ID-X software version 1.6 (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Statistical interpretation of STR data was achieved using allele frequencies maintained in the National Institute of Standards and Technology population database.21

 Role of the funding source

The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Results

The first nasopharygeal swab, obtained at the community screening event on April 18, 2020, was positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR testing. Two subsequent nucleic acid amplification tests obtained after resolution of symptoms were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (table 1). The patient's symptoms returned on May 28, 2020, and he was admitted to hospital on June 5, 2020, at which time a second nasopharyngeal swab was obtained and was positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by real-time RT-PCR testing. The patient required ongoing oxygen support in hospital and reported symptoms that included myalgia, cough, and shortness of breath. Chest radiography showed development of patchy, bilateral, interstitial opacities suggestive of viral or atypical pneumonia. On June 6, 2020, the patient was tested for IgG and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 and positive results were obtained (figure 1).
Table 1Summary of laboratory results

Specimen ASpecimen B

April 18, 2020May 9, 2020May 26, 2020June 5, 2020June 6, 2020
Test methodologyReal-time RT-PCRTMAReal-time RT-PCRReal-time RT-PCRImmunoassay (IgG and IgM antibody detection)
Test resultPositiveNegativeNegativePositivePositive
Quantitative resultCt 35·24RLU 299..Ct 35·31..
TMA=transcription-mediated amplification. Ct=cycle threshold. RLU=relative light units.
With two episodes of symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and two specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 separated by a period of 48 days, in addition to resolution of symptoms and two non-reactive (negative) SARS-CoV-2 test results in between positive test results, nucleic acid sequencing was done of the viruses associated with the two positive tests. Illumina sequencing yielded 738β€ˆ617 read pairs for the specimen obtained in April, 2020 (specimen A), and 1β€ˆ410β€ˆ885 read pairs for the specimen obtained in June, 2020 (specimen B). Sequence data indicated that specimen A was a member of clade 20C, because genomic sequence analysis identified five mutations (single nucleotide variants [SNVs]) that were hallmarks of the 20C clade (3037C→T, 14408C→T, 23403A→G, 1059C→T, and 25563G→T). Specimen B was also a member of clade 20C and presented the same five hallmark SNVs. Specimen A had five further SNVs compared with the reference genome. Specimen B showed six additional SNVs and a mutation at position 14β€ˆ407, adjacent to the SNV 14408C→T and recorded as a dinucleotide multinucleotide variant (MNV) at positions 14β€ˆ407 and 14β€ˆ408 of the genome. Six SNVs were shared between specimen A and specimen B (table 2). Specimen A had four additional SNVs not seen in specimen B, whereas specimen B had seven SNVs that were absent in specimen A. A visualisation of the relation of sequence data sets between specimens A and B is shown in figure 2. An additional three deletions and one insertion were noted in the sequence of specimen B relative to the reference genome (appendix p 2). These findings were confirmed by additional analyses of FASTQ files generated from specimens A and B (only the SNV at locus 4113 in specimen A was not verified). Predictions of insertions and deletions were less stable, with only the deletion at loci 2084 and the insertion at 6018 confirmed. The Freebayes analysis detected a deletion at 22β€ˆ832 in specimen B that was not identified by the first sequence analysis (appendix p 3), but insertion and deletion predictions from short-read alignments are less reliable than are SNV predictions22and are merely presented for completeness.
Table 2Variants noted in specimens A and B compared with the reference genome


Coverage (reads)Allele frequency (%)Forward/reverse balance

*

Average quality

Shared variants of specimens A and B versus reference genome
241C→T

Specimen A67100%0·3735·6

Specimen B6100%0·3836·0
1059C→T

Specimen A144100%0·4835·6

Specimen B5592·7%0·2635·4
3037C→T

Specimen A89100%0·4235·6

Specimen B42599·8%0·1935·5
14408C→T


Specimen A73100%0·4035·7

Specimen B114599·6%0·4335·6
23403A→G

Specimen A685999·9%0·1935·7

Specimen B10β€ˆ48499·9%0·4635·6
25563G→T

Specimen A421100%0·4535·2

Specimen B75799·1%0·4835·4
Specimen A-specific variants versus reference genome
539C→T14199·3%0·4535·6
4113C→T15970·4%0·3835·6
7921A→G18298·9%0·4935·7
16741G→T17399·4%0·4735·6
Specimen B-specific variants versus reference genome
8140C→T104685·0%0·4335·6
11102C→T171399·9%0·4435·5
14407C→T

114599·7%0·4335·6
15190G→C13990·6%0·3335·7
15981C→T224100%0·3835·5
26013C→T141599·2%0·3835·5
29466C→T8698·8%0·0735·8
Reference genome was Wuhan Hu 1 (GenBank MN908947.3).* Ratio of forward to reverse reads covering the locus.† Phred score. Phred is a measure of base calling accuracy, a higher score indicates higher quality. A Phred score of 30 indicates a base-calling accuracy of 99·9%.‡ CLC Genomics classified this variant as a dinucleotide multinucleotide variant. The two variants have been split in this table for clarity.
Figure thumbnail gr2
Figure 2Variant mapping of specimens A and B against the reference genomeShow full caption
Specimens A and B were among 171 samples obtained in the US state of Nevada between March 5 and June 5, 2020, and sequenced. Phylogenetic analysis showed the relatedness of specimens A and B to each other and their comparative distance among additional positive samples (figure 3). To rule out the possibility of specimen mishandling, or mislabelling errors during RNA extractions, forensic identity testing was done to investigate the source and intermediate materials of specimens A and B. Analysis of each of the specimens, residual extractions, and aliquot residuals showed that that specimens A and B were derived from the same individual, with a one in 53·48 ×β€ˆ1024chance of the specimens being from different people.
Figure thumbnail gr3
Figure 3Phylogenetic placement of specimens A and B within Nevada isolates, reference genomes, and global cladesShow full caption

Discussion

Our case report presents details of the first individual in North America to have symptomatic reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. Similar to observations with the reinfection case in Ecuador,12 our patient showed increased symptom severity in their second infection, whereas the cases from Belgium and the Netherlands11 and Hong Kong10 did not show a difference in severity of symptoms. The mechanisms that could account for a more severe secondary infection can only be speculated. First, a very high dose of virus might have led to the second instance of infection and induced more severe disease.23 Second, it is possible that reinfection was caused by a version of the virus that was more virulent, or more virulent in this patient's context. Third, a mechanism of antibody-dependent enhancement might be the cause, a means by which specific Fc-bearing immune cells become infected with virus by binding to specific antibodies. This mechanism has been seen previously with the betacoronavirus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome.24 In that case, the patient recovered and was discharged from hospital.The individual associated with these two SARS-CoV-2 infections had no immunological disorders that would imply facilitation of reinfection. They were not taking any immunosuppressive drugs. The individual was negative for HIV by antibody and RNA testing (data not shown) and had no obvious cell count abnormalities. The secondary positive case (reinfection) occurred simultaneously to a positive case in a cohabitant (parent), who also provided a specimen on June 5, 2020, that was positive by nucleic acid amplification testing (transcription-mediated amplification). Sequencing is underway on the co-habitant specimen to ascertain its potential role in reinfection. However, the positive specimen from the co-habitant was obtained and tested in the Hologic Aptima format, which did not align with the procedures established at our sequencing laboratory. Nevertheless, the co-habitant positive case provides a possible source for secondary exposure and reinfection of our patient.It is possible that we have reported a case of continuous infection entailing deactivation and reactivation. However, for such a hypothesis to be true, a mutational rate of SARS-CoV-2 would be required that has not yet been recorded.25 26 27 28 Specimens A and B showed an extrapolated rate of SNV and MNV accumulation of 83·64 substitutions per year, a rate that greatly exceeds the currently observed rate of 23·12.28 However, even more importantly, the four substitutions noted in specimen A would have to revert to the ancestral genotype, and the odds of this reversion occurring are remote. Of course, if such an amount of base change did occur in that timeframe, the remarkable nature of specimens A and B would shift from a case of possible reinfection to one of high-rate evolution within an infected individual. Another alternative explanation for the observed differences in specimens A and B would be that of co-infection. In a co-infection hypothesis, the patient would have been infected with viruses of both genotypes at the time of sample collection. Such a hypothesis would then further require that the specimen B type virus be present, yet undetected in April, 2020, and then conversely, specimen A type virions become depleted before the June, 2020, sample collection date. Specimens A and B were both in clade 20C, which was the predominant major clade seen in northern Nevada at the time samples were obtained. Our survey of viruses in Nevada identified samples resembling each of the case genotypes.15 Although evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 quasispecies exist at low and fluctuating frequencies in infected samples,29 whereby low-frequency (eg, 1%) SNVs could be seen in various samples from the same patient, this possible situation would not itself account for the genotype switch observed between the first infection and reinfection.Our findings have implications for the role of vaccination in response to COVID-19. If we have truly reported a case of reinfection, initial exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not result in a level of immunity that is 100% protective for all individuals. With respect to vaccination, this understanding is established, with influenza regularly showing the challenges of effective vaccine design.30 A major limitation of our case study is that we were unable to undertake any assessment of the immune response to the first episode of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also could not assess fully the effectiveness of the immune responses (eg, neutralising antibody titres) during the second episode, when the individual was antibody-positive for total antibody assay to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. If our patient is a case of natural viral evolution in vivo (although highly unlikely in view of the requirement of four reversions to reference genotypes) then the implications of these data are that SARS-CoV-2 can adapt with enough genetic dexterity to avoid a natural immune response in a manner to re-establish detectable levels of infection in an individual. If our patient is a case of reinfection, it is crucial to note that the frequency of such an occurrence is not defined by one case study: this event could be rare. The absence of comprehensive genomic sequencing of positive cases in the USA and worldwide limits the advances in public health surveillance needed to find these cases. Certainly, limitations in screening and testing availability for SARS-CoV-2 exacerbate the poor surveillance efforts being undertaken not only to diagnose COVID-19 but also to obtain actionable genetic tracking of this agent.

Contributors

RLT contributed to writing of the report and data analysis. JRS contributed to review and editing of the report and data analysis. PDH contributed to sequencing and analysis. HK contributed to public health intelligence and case identification. NC contributed to clinical data and clinical care. AG and CL contributed to diagnostics analysis. SCV and CCR contributed to writing and editing of the report and figure generation. DJ and MJF contributed to identity testing and confirmation. SVH contributed to diagnostics and laboratory management. MP had the idea for the study and contributed to diagnostics, formal analysis, and writing and editing of the report.

Declaration of interests

JRS reports personal fees from Qiagen Digital Insights, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

[The yellow highlights were mine: Technophobe]  Source and links:    article

How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
ksc View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: February 09 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 10995
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ksc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 2:49am
7) Troubling—official  reinfection tracker of confirmed REINFECTIONS (scientifically documented by RNA 

DNA
 comparisons) now has recorded 23 reinfections. Of 17 w/ known clinical status, 

Pushpin
9 of 17 (53%) had a worse 2nd infection than first. #COVID19 https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/


Image
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 94027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 4:07am

[url]https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/nederlandse-vrouw-89-overleden-na-tweede-besmetting-met-coronavirus~a8b4288a/[/url] or https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/nederlandse-vrouw-89-overleden-na-tweede-besmetting-met-coronavirus~a8b4288a/ 

At the end of august at least four cases of reinfection in NL were reported-out of the 23 world wide known cases. Immunity is expected to last around a year...

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 4:18am

A year of immunity would mean a vaccine could work; although to be safe, you would need twice yearly boosters.  That is of course, if the re-infection cases remain rare.  It would enable ring-vaccination too, in hot spots.

With so many vaccine trials underway, I am hopefull.  Assuming of course our useless political leaders don't let it become too widespread first.  

🀷

  Maybe, less hopefull...

How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
WitchMisspelled View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: January 20 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 17170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WitchMisspelled Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 6:57am

Originally posted by Technophobe Technophobe wrote:

Assuming of course our useless political leaders don't let it become too widespread first.  

🀷

  Maybe, less hopefull...


Oh honey!  I think that ship has sailed in our respective countries...

Back to Top
KiwiMum View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: May 29 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 29640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KiwiMum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 1:57pm

Originally posted by Technophobe Technophobe wrote:

A year of immunity would mean a vaccine could work; although to be safe, you would need twice yearly boosters.  That is of course, if the re-infection cases remain rare.  It would enable ring-vaccination too, in hot spots.

With so many vaccine trials underway, I am hopefull.  Assuming of course our useless political leaders don't let it become too widespread first.  

🀷

  Maybe, less hopefull...

In theory, you're right Techno, but in practise, I'm not so sure. Think of the logistics of vaccinating 70m people every year. It's simply not doable. This would spawn a whole new industry requiring dedicated facilities across the country, full time staff and the administration of this would be huge. As for the cost............

Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
Back to Top
WitchMisspelled View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: January 20 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 17170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WitchMisspelled Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 2:12pm

I'm all for whole new industries.  New jobs. Training.  Not such a bad idea.  Here in the U.S. they could set it up at the Covid testing sites.  That and pharmacists can give a vaccine here in the U.S.  So I'm not sure the logistics of this would be insurmountable. 

Back to Top
Hazelpad View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: September 09 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 6910
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Hazelpad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 2:49pm

Not all antibodies are protective, some do more harm than good.  This has implications for vaccine design.  

Maybe an antibody response is not what we need for this virus, maybe a prolonged antibody response will be  dangerous, even pathogenic to us rather than protective....maybe our immune system has to get rid of the original COVID19 antibodies it made during the first infection quickly....let me explain my thinking.

In natural infection with this virus we know...

1)  This virus does not produce a strong antibody response, 

 2)   The small titer of  antibodies we do produce don't hang about, they wane very quickly practically undetectable  after a few months .....WHY would the immune system do this .. Think WHY ... Why would our body get rid of left over antibodies to this virus in a hurry..... Our immune system is geared up to protect us, its antiviral responses are strong....why then does it get rid of the antibodies it has taken time to produce....... because ...excuse me for stating the obvious ..... it may be harmful for  us to have long term antibodies to this virus circulating in our blood.


no this cant be ......antibodies are good, antibodies are protective, antibodies are the holy grail....NO NOT ALL THE TIME...sometimes we need to get rid of them after infection has past, and rid of them fast...sometimes lingering antibodies are pathogenic.   Some viruses undertake " Antibody dependent Enhancement"    i.e.  Having COVID19 antibodies may make it easier for the virus to cause more damage the second time around. ....shit where would that leave vaccinations.



The state  " Antibody - dependent enhancement"   ( ADE)  stopped production of vaccine against the first SARS virus.   Its a fascinating mechanism by which having antibodies to some  viruses  actually makes that virus more pathological on second exposure ( reinfection).    This can be through one of 2 methods.

1) Some viruses have a special ability to uses specific antibodies   (made during a previous exposure)  to stay alive and hijack a ride into immune cells it shouldn't ever get into alive.  Use the antibodies like a trojan horse.  Not many types of virus can do this,  but we know  the SARS1  coronaviruses had the ability to do this and stopped vaccine research in 2002.  Vaccination would have made the disease worse. 

2)  The second method is when the antibodies left over from the  first infection bind to the virus when it  re-infects, but instead of neutralizing it,  unfortunately it  binds to a site that activates a  cytokine storm cascade.  This cascade wouldn't have happened if the antibody titer had dropped after initial infection. 

Dengue virus vaccines failed trials because of this and I am sure there are others.  If we vaccinate without this being investigated we could be " priming humans"  for a worse outcome when we do encounter the virus.  I hope this is not the case,  but that is why it is so much harder to develop a vaccine for this than flu.  They will know what to look out for during clinical trials, it is basic immunology, but until we see data then we wont know.  I know the Oxford group are very homed in on the  possibility of ADE and I am sure the other vaccine researchers are also.  It wont be missed, the vaccines will be pulled way before then, I am just worried incase this turns out to be the case, but still hopeful it wont be.

Give Chuck credit, he  alluded to ADE  early on in the pandemic when vaccines were first spoken about, and I think he was right on the money.  I remember reading his post and having one of those Jurrasic Park velociraptor  ( "clever Girl")  moments.  We do see it in immunological research, and he spotted its potential way back in March.

Here is an article about what they know on this virus.  They explain better than I can about how antibody based vaccine and therapies may actually exacerbate the severity of COVID19 upon reexposure  by ADE.   

Hz x


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5




Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies

Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials. Here, we describe key ADE mechanisms and discuss mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies in development. We also outline recently published data to evaluate the risks and opportunities for antibody-based protection against SARS-CoV-2.



Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 3:35pm

Thank you Hazelpad

Might be why a second dose of Covid seems to affect people  more,

Very informative......

Something I  ever considered........

I did wonder why sars1 vaccine trails  was halted.......

Or was it and Covid  is the result ?

We will never know......

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.πŸ––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
EdwinSm, View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: April 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 24065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote EdwinSm, Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 13 2020 at 10:20pm

Thanks Hazelpad....Depressing reading, but good to know that, so once again thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2020 at 5:42am

Originally posted by EdwinSm, EdwinSm, wrote:

Thanks Hazelpad....Depressing reading, but good to know that, so once again thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Ditto!

How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 94027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 14 2020 at 1:03pm

[url]https://www.debka.com/mivzak/rare-case-of-81-israeli-patients-reinfected-by-covid-19-causes-concern/[/url] or https://www.debka.com/mivzak/rare-case-of-81-israeli-patients-reinfected-by-covid-19-causes-concern/ :

The Health Ministry has confirmed that investigations are being conducted on 81 patients who appear to have recovered from coronavirus and become reinfected within months of their first bout. The results of their probes could bear heavily on the effectiveness of any vaccine that may be developed.

DJ-some further info [url]https://www.debka.com/mivzak/seriously-ill-covid-cases-decline-while-new-ones-climb/[/url] or https://www.debka.com/mivzak/seriously-ill-covid-cases-decline-while-new-ones-climb/ ;

As the Coronavirus Cabinet prepares to meet Tuesday on exit strategy, the number of new coronavirus cases spiked to 3,097 on Monday after a three-day downturn. There were 51,250 active cases, although the seriously ill figure dropped by 12.8pc to 801. The death toll rose to 3,021.
Half of the 6,061 elderly who succumbed to the virus belong to the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) communities, four times their proportion in the general population. Their deaths were in the same proportion. These figures were released to haredi publications to boost the official campaign against widespread violations of health rules in these communities. Many coronavirus patients choose to be treated at home instead of the hospital, including prominent rabbis who contracted the disease.

DJ-The orthodox may be a very hard group to get an insight on-it could even be some people using not their own name when tested..(so TWO persons using one name get infected-showing up in statistics as a double infection). 

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down