When will a vaccine *really* be available?

[PlatinumGuy]

2. Is it fair to assume the vaccine antibodies are equivalent to covid antibodies, in terms of immunity likelihood?

Covid antibodies are a סימן, not a סיבה. They prove one had a full covid immune response. They don't confer immunity on their own.

If one got a vaccine, there is no proof that one already had a full covid immune response, and the antibodies alone don't protect a large percentage of vaccine receivers.

We don't know if it's 100% of receivers 50% of the time, or 50% of receivers 100% of the time, but we do know with certainty that blood antibody levels don't predict it.

I think he's asking if we have any confirmed infections of people with confirmed high antibody levels at the time of the infection. And I think the answer is no.

If the question is vaccine antibodies, the answer is absolutely yes. Virtually everybody in the vaccine trials presented antibodies 2 weeks after dose 1, yet many of them got covid.

[AsherO]

If the question is vaccine antibodies, the answer is absolutely yes. Virtually everybody in the vaccine trials presented antibodies 2 weeks after dose 1, yet many of them got covid.

They all had some antibodies or a high antibody count? Do we know for a fact those antibodies didn't wane when they got infected a month or two later?

[PlatinumGuy]

They all had some antibodies or a high antibody count? Do we know for a fact those antibodies didn't wane when they got infected a month or two later?

All of those were checked, and no correlation was found.

We're not talking about infection months later, we're talking infection during the actual 14-21/28 day time period.

[ShimshonK]

Yes, virtually everybody in the vaccine trials presented antibodies 2 weeks after dose 1, yet not all of them had immunity or any correlation to blood antibodies levels.

I posted the data elsewhere.

That data surprises me, because I personally have a sister that tested negative for antibodies 5 days after the second dose.

[PlatinumGuy]

That data surprises me, because I personally have a sister that tested negative for antibodies 5 days after the second dose.

That's because the commercial antibody tests are different and pick up a narrow subset of antibodies. The trials used far more elaborate tests - 5 different assays for every sample. 

[AsherO]

That's because the commercial antibody tests are different and pick up a narrow subset of antibodies. The trials used far more elaborate tests - 5 different assays for every sample. 

The public antibody tests are designed to test for antibodies from infection, not vaccination.

[ShimshonK]

The public antibody tests are designed to test for antibodies from infection, not vaccination.

I think that depends which test you get. I'm trying to find out what tests are used in Chemed.

The virus contains Spike and Nucleocapsid proteins, so someone with a natural infection would have antibodies to S and N.  Some antibody tests measured S and some N.  The vaccine induces antibodies to S only.  So the sign was in effect telling people that the test in that clinic was measuring N, so a positive test would mean you'd been infected, but couldn't tell you if you've got antibodies to S, which would mean EITHER that you got infected or that you were vaccinated.

[AsherO]

I think that depends which test you get. I'm trying to find out what tests are used in Chemed.

Too much oversimplification. Just because the vaccine induces antibodies to COVID's spike, doesn't mean those antibodies (and the rest of the immune system's reaction to COVID spikes) is the same for vaccinated people as it is for post-infection people who have antibodies.

Immunity is too complicated for reductionist thinking.

[ShimshonK]

For example, it's possible that you're a bit faster than average in developing an antibody response, but a bit slower than average in developing a T cell response, and both are needed for complete immunity.

Are antibodies and t cells the only things needed for an immune response, or are there other necessary components?
I take it there's no way to test for t cells...

[AsherO]

Are antibodies and t cells the only things needed for an immune response, or are there other necessary components?
I take it there's no way to test for t cells...

#oversimplification

[ShimshonK]

#oversimplification

I literally asked a question.

[AsherO]

I literally asked a question.

What does "needed for an immune response" mean?

That's like asking if a crowbar and a phone to call the cops are all that's needed for reacting when an intruder enters your home.

[ShimshonK]

What does "needed for an immune response" mean?

That's like asking if a crowbar and a phone to call the cops are all that's needed for reacting when an intruder enters your home.

I never claimed to be a scientist, and I posted a question and messages here to gather more information on the topic. But writing "#oversimplification" doesn't add any information to the discussion (and comes off as quite rude). If you can provide information, I'd love to hear it.
Yes, I assume there are specific things that need to happen in the body in order for it to provide immunity.

[AsherO]

I never claimed to be a scientist, and I posted a question and messages here to gather more information on the topic. But writing "#oversimplification" doesn't add any information to the discussion (and comes off as quite rude). If you can provide information, I'd love to hear it.
Yes, I assume there are specific things that need to happen in the body in order for it to provide immunity.

People who are much more educated than you on this topic (biobook) have repeatedly tried to tell you to follow what are recommended protocols. Meanwhile you're trying to "educate yourself" so you can "make an educated decision" when really all your looking for is something to rationalize your relaxing things.

Do what you want, it's your life. But don't convince yourself you know better just because you know that immunology includes B-cells and T-cells.

You're trying to quantify how risky x is, and the answer is that scientists who are much smarter than you and I and have access to all available data don't have the exact answers so they produced general guidelines. But you're going to be smarter than them by asking questions, go right ahread.

[ShimshonK]

People who are much more educated than you on this topic (biobook) have repeatedly tried to tell you to follow what are recommended protocols. Meanwhile you're trying to "educate yourself" so you can "make an educated decision" when really all your looking for is something to rationalize your relaxing things.

Do what you want, it's your life. But don't convince yourself you know better just because you know that immunology includes B-cells and T-cells.

You're trying to quantify how risky x is, and the answer is that scientists who are much smarter than you and I and have access to all available data don't have the exact answers so they produced general guidelines. But you're going to be smarter than them by asking questions, go right ahread.

I'm asking questions as they come up, and I very much appreciate all the info people have given over here.
Yes, I asked many follow up questions, because I'm a bit surprised that people are making it seem as if there's no reason to believe there's a correlation, whereas I have been led to believe there was, at least somewhat.
If you think I don't care about covid and precautions, you don't know me.

[biobook]

1. Has positive antibody correlation tied to immunity been totally debunked?
2. Is it fair to assume the vaccine antibodies are equivalent to covid antibodies, in terms of immunity likelihood?.

Vaccine antibodies and covid antibodies have the same structure, so the lab test that measures spike protein does not differentiate between them. 
Somebody who has been vaccinated and somebody who has had covid both seem to have immunity to covid for at least three months, based on the results of clinical trials.

Even if something isn't completely proven, I think it's understandable for it to be taken into account if there's a high likelihood of correlation. An example would be the vaccine itself. You write "You should assume that you don't have complete immunity until 2 weeks after the second dose." If we were to only trust 100% proven data, we would not assume immunity even 2 weeks after the second dose, as it's only shown a 95% likelihood of immunity.

Well, 2 weeks after the second dose we're 100% certain that you'll have 95% immunity...
But seriously, immunity isn't an on-off thing, like a light switch, but more like the sliding scale for brightness on your computer monitor, which gradually gets brighter and brighter.  So you're right, that on Purim, 5 days after your second dose, you'll be further along on that sliding scale, and close to what's considered maximal immunity.

I've been taking all of the precautions all along, and I plan to, at least somewhat, through Purim - but I still feel that knowing the odds that I'm immune will help me to know just how concerned I should be..

Depends what you mean by "concerned".
Does knowing the odds mean that you'll be less anxious, better able to concentrate on the megilla, have a more relaxed seuda with family?  Then, yeah, the odds that you're immune are pretty high. 
Does knowing the odds mean that you'll be less likely to wear a mask, socially distance, more likely to dance and drink?  In that case, it's better to assume that you're not yet immune.

[biobook]

They all had some antibodies or a high antibody count? Do we know for a fact those antibodies didn't wane when they got infected a month or two later?

This is an important question, and was asked by many tweeting scientists when the Pfizer data came out.  What was it - 9 people out of 20,000 who got covid during the 2-3 months after the second injection?  Hello, Pfizer?  Can you tell us more?  Nine is not a huge number of people to study.  It seems certain that Pfizer has been studying those individuals, but AFAIK no studies have been published on those particular individuals.  So we don't know if they never made antibodies, or if they did and the antibody levels declined, or if they had high antibodies but got infected nevertheless.

[AsherO]

This is an important question, and was asked by many tweeting scientists when the Pfizer data came out.  What was it - 9 people out of 20,000 who got covid during the 2-3 months after the second injection?  Hello, Pfizer?  Can you tell us more?  Nine is not a huge number of people to study.  It seems certain that Pfizer has been studying those individuals, but AFAIK no studies have been published on those particular individuals.  So we don't know if they never made antibodies, or if they did and the antibody levels declined, or if they had high antibodies but got infected nevertheless.

It's presumably in Pfizer's best interest to hold its cards close, eh?

[ShimshonK]

Vaccine antibodies and covid antibodies have the same structure, so the lab test that measures spike protein does not differentiate between them. 
Somebody who has been vaccinated and somebody who has had covid both seem to have immunity to covid for at least three months, based on the results of clinical trials.
Well, 2 weeks after the second dose we're 100% certain that you'll have 95% immunity...
But seriously, immunity isn't an on-off thing, like a light switch, but more like the sliding scale for brightness on your computer monitor, which gradually gets brighter and brighter.  So you're right, that on Purim, 5 days after your second dose, you'll be further along on that sliding scale, and close to what's considered maximal immunity. Depends what you mean by "concerned".
Does knowing the odds mean that you'll be less anxious, better able to concentrate on the megilla, have a more relaxed seuda with family?  Then, yeah, the odds that you're immune are pretty high. 
Does knowing the odds mean that you'll be less likely to wear a mask, socially distance, more likely to dance and drink?  In that case, it's better to assume that you're not yet immune.

Thank you again for all the info, and I would say I'm closer to the first example regarding purim (the last point you wrote).

[biobook]

Are antibodies and t cells the only things needed for an immune response, or are there other necessary components?
I take it there's no way to test for t cells...

Testing for T cells is more complicated.  Also there are several categories of T cells, and the relative amount of each is important.  There actually was a test for sars-cov-2 T cells developed last year, but AFAIK it is used only for research purposes, and is not clinically available.  There are some diseases in which one or another part of the immune system doesn't function, so T cell tests might be used for that.

In addition to the different categories of T cells, there are other cells that are important for immunity, and a lot of chemicals that act as signals between the different cells.  As Asher pointed out, the immune system is elaborately complex. Fascinating, if you're looking for a topic to study.

People are being asked to wait 5-6 weeks for maximal immunity (3-4 wk between doses, then 2 more weeks).  If, instead, you want to analyze your own personal immune status, you'd have to invest a lot more time than that to understand the entire immune system, and to find the tests that might give you the information you'd need.