T cells offer immunity to COVID variants; isn't it a wonderful news?

[Karamela]

This is the result of a fresh study: T cells induced by COVID-19 infection respond to new virus variants: U.S. study. It basically means no vaccine is needed for those who have already had a Covid infection which, depending on the country, could mean currently up to 60% of the population

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Absolutely

And it means that the Single-Antigen inducing vaccines like vector and mRNA are inferior and even foster the spread of escape-mutations.

Three consequences:

If you have had covid and not yet vaccinated: you don’t need one.

If you are vaccinated but you wasn’t infected. An infection, now maybe less harmless through vaccination, is still the only way to acquire t-cell immunity against possible variants. You need SarsCov2 in you to produce response to various of its structures so that future escape variants can be countered by your immunity

Or you’ll have to live in fear and wait 9-12 month for every „new“ adjusted vaccine


Third: whole-virion vaccines are the only sane choice if you don’t want to get infected

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Deleted

 

[J.R.K]

This is the result of a fresh study: T cells induced by COVID-19 infection respond to new virus variants: U.S. study. It basically means no vaccine is needed for those who have already had a Covid infection which, depending on the country, could mean currently up to 60% of the population

Thank you for sharing Karamela! I appreciate the hope that there is some validation out there of gaining immunity other than the highly controversial mRNA vaccine option available. As Lee has stated the viron style of vaccine may provide a safer option if push would come to shove on a vaccine passport in order to have some semblance of the life we knew before COVID. However I am cautiously optimistic that a test for antibodies that may exist post infection and recovery in the wild may emerge as a possible secondary or tertiary option, rather than risk the health status that I currently enjoy. Keep the faith!!

 

[CreakyJoints]

Does anyone have a link to the actual study, by any chance?

EDIT: is it this?

 

[HealthisWealth]

I Love this forum

 

[ecstatichamster]

https://dm5migu4zj3pb.cloudfront.net/manuscripts/145000/145476/JCI145476.v2.pdf

SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 individuals - PubMed

Characterization of the T cell response in individuals who recover from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is critical to understanding its contribution to protective immunity. A multiplexed peptide-MHC tetramer approach was used to screen 408 SARS-CoV-2...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[CreakyJoints]

https://dm5migu4zj3pb.cloudfront.net/manuscripts/145000/145476/JCI145476.v2.pdf

SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 individuals - PubMed

Characterization of the T cell response in individuals who recover from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is critical to understanding its contribution to protective immunity. A multiplexed peptide-MHC tetramer approach was used to screen 408 SARS-CoV-2...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Odd how they're reporting it two months late as if it's new... also, that doesn't seem to be in the same journal reported in the link. Are you sure that's the correct one?

The link I posted is now useless, but here's the one I thought it was. Similar staff, similar study, but the text, references, and so on, are different.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Same study I think.

 

[CreakyJoints]

Same study I think.

Yeah they do look the same, the sample size was the biggest clue, I think. Any idea what might account for the three month gap? If it was already peer-reviewed and published in January, why did it change? It looks like the more recent one has less information, fewer contributors, and references - I don't know much of the process behind publishing a study, so I'm curious if anyone has any insights on this.

Thank you for the link, in any case.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Yeah they do look the same, the sample size was the biggest clue, I think. Any idea what might account for the three month gap? If it was already peer-reviewed and published in January, why did it change? It looks like the more recent one has less information, fewer contributors, and references - I don't know much of the process behind publishing a study, so I'm curious if anyone has any insights on this.

Thank you for the link, in any case.

I don’t know about this discrepancy. Maybe @haidut has input.