How silly would it be to get infected at this point for purely political reasons!

Golem, I’m not asking if there are studies contradicting the peer reviewed data we have now. I’m well aware such studies do not exist. Apparently your sense of humor is as underdeveloped as your ability to apply logic or command the English language.

So basing posts on verifiable empirical evidence is now dogma? LOL

Keep digging and whining. We are amused and entertained.

 

I already provided several. Like these...

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063.full
https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/54/eabf8891

... and the others I linked before.

Retract!

 

Yes! Memory B cells increase during the first 5 months after infection. So over a “few months” immunity is actually increasing. You claimed it only lasts a few months when in reality over that “few months” period immunity is actually increasing!

Of course you have again posted links that support my claim and destroy yours. Thank you!

You are demanding I deny science as you deny science. Won’t happen. LOL

You are adding to the evidence what you post is disinformation.

 

Wow! More selective reading.

So now it's clear that you have been arguing based on the TITLE of the studies without reading the content. And all this time we thought you were actually contributing something. How wrong we were!

Retract!

 

Just to help you out a bit on memory B cells and Covid here are a few posts from the past demonstrating that as I’ve claimed I’m always on the cutting edge of science while you and others deny science.

Here is me predicting memory B cells would play a part in long lasting immunity back on Sept. 10

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072035049/

Here I elaborate on October 29.

It’s understandable you lack general knowledge of virology and immunology. And it’s normal. Most people have no reason or need to understand these subjects. There are even self proclaimed healthcare professionals here on PF that are functionally illiterate on these subjects (of course there is one genuine expert physician as well). So lack of knowledge on your part is understandable and not a problem.

The problem is when, like in this case, you make statements that are demonstrably false. Instead of learning and studying you double down on false claims that empirical evidence soundly refute. In fact, there is NO evidence to support your claims. All evidence is counter to your claims. At this point what you post becomes disinformation—not because you had no way to know it was false initially—but because when you are shown it is false, and why, you keep repeating it.

You have been underrating longevity of immunity in the face of counter evidence since the first studies came out on waning first wave antibodies. At that time I had to remind you of the current evidence at that time of T cell memory creation in convalescents and what that meant to functional immunity. The studies you quoted then explicitly stated we couldn’t conclude immunity was short term based solely on declining antibody levels. But you made that claim and used a source that explicitly disagreed with you.

 

Please quote the title including the information memory B cells increase for 150 days post infection! LOL

Of course you won’t because there is no such title. I read these studies when they come out Golem. That’s why I know what’s going on and you don’t.

 

You are wasting your time. What you need to do is retract.

 

Look. You accused me of lying when I made the side comment (a footnote, BTW) that you could get reinfected even a few months after you recover from Covid. This is a fact. But it makes absolutely no difference if, in the end, we found out that this is not so in any significant way. I have shown you that this is a reasonable conclusion extracted from the research. Therefore not a lie! So now you need to retract your statement about me posting "disinformation".

I have shown you again and again the same studies, links and quotes. But since you adhere to the pseudo-scientific frame of reference, you will cherry-pick what you can.

But you have not shown that my statement is even false. Yes!!! You can get reinfected after a few months! Which means that, unless we get a large enough number of the population (which I believe is somewhere between 80% and 90%) We will not achieve herd immunity, we would not be able to go to a normal life, and we will not end the financial crisis in the foreseeable future.

Yes... most people could be protected after 8 months. We don't know for how long. You keep trying to prove this. But it's irrelevant. Because some can get re-infected within a few months of recovering. Which is what you called "disinformation". Not only can it happen, it HAS happened. Even within as few as 2 months after being released from the hospital.
https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/2/e240531

As a matter of fact, it's quite possible that even people who are protected can still acquire the virus and transmit it to others.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...can-still-be-spread-study-finds-idUSKBN29J004

The only way you could pull away from your responsibility to retract is if you prove that it is not possible to become re-infected after recovering from Covid. Your cherry-picked quotes from studies is clear indication that you know that you can't.

So just retract!

 

My posts are for edification of others. So they can learn about virology and how people like you continuously deny science. You clearly have no interest in facts or you would not keep posting disinformation.

 

You are now confusing yourself. I clearly stated there is no virus for which immunity from natural infection or vaccination is 100%. Covid is no exception.

Here is your initial claim.

That claim acknowledges protection exists and asserts it only lasts a few months. This is a false claim.

You now wish to change your claim to “some people get reinfected “. That was not your claim. If you wanted to make that claim you had the chance. Instead you made the above false claim.

Once it’s been pointed out to you the claim is false, and empirical evidence provided to demonstrate it being false, your repeating of the false statement becomes disinformation.

If you actually read and had the background knowledge to understand these studies you would know why reinfection is possible. It’s because everyone’s immune system responds differently to infection (and vaccination). Varying titers of neutralizing antibodies are produced. Different types of memory B cells are produced. Robust T cell immunity may or may not develop. Because of this we have (in natural infection and vaccination) a combination of sterilizing and functional immunity in the population. Those with sterilizing immunity are protected from reinfection (infection in the case of vaccines) and those with functional immunity have the ability to be reinfected (infected in the case of vaccines) but are usually asymptomatic or mild infections that may or may not be contagious based on numerous factors. Then of course there are the rare cases where no immunity results from infection or vaccination.

However, those individuals that develop any kind of immunity, be it sterilizing or functional, do not lose it “in a few months”. What they develop in neutralizing antibodies (that are responsible for sterilizing immunity) fade some in the convalescent phase. But they are still present and detectible many months later in most who develop them. As I already pointed out, memory B cells that are key to long term functional and even long term sterilizing immunity increase for five months post infection and then remain stable about as long as we have had opportunity to study. T cell memory that develops and contributes to functional immunity is stable as well.

So the claim convalescents are only protected for a few months is patently false. Most of the “immunity” that exists right after recovery hangs around for many months (at least, likely much more). Some immunity , memory B cells specifically, actually INCREASE for 5 months and then remain stable.

If you wanted to claim there are documented reinfections you should have stated such. Not the false claim you made.

By the way, the study referenced in the Reuter’s piece is interesting because it shows only two “likely” reinfections. The others are termed “possible” which isn’t particularly convincing. And the Reuters piece of course does not explain the difference between functional and sterilizing immunity—but poor coverage of science by journalists is the norm—so no surprise. But basing opinions on journalism as opposed to the actual science will lead you down the wrong path as often as not.

 

So are you now trying to say that I was right, but are trying to twist things so you don't have to retract?

Listen... I know you're not going to retract. But now I know that you simply won't accept facts when they are shown to you. So I won't bother. I just won't take you seriously anymore. Which saves me a lot of time.

Thanks for playing.

 

Your statement I responded to is false. You are welcome to change your claim at any time. Unfortunately for you your original false claim is now a permanent record that I have quoted numerous times now. So your moving of goalposts is irrelevant.

You never take facts or empirical evidence seriously. You never have. Since all my posts are based on empirical evidence you have never taken my posts seriously. So nothing changes. You will continue to make false claims and deny science and I will point out your errors. Same as always.

It’s been fun as always.