2021 study - Majority of uninfected adults show preexisting SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity

[Red Phoenix]

The implications of this 15 March 2021 published study, which did not get the attention it deserved at the moment it was issued,  are throwing cold water on the whole COVID narrative.

 

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33720905/#:~:text=Using an orthogonal antibody testing approach, we estimated that about

and full study here > https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/146316

 

... we estimated that about 0.6% of nontriaged adults from the greater Vancouver, Canada, area between May 17 and June 19, 2020, showed clear evidence of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, after adjusting for false-positive and false-negative test results. Using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2.

...

We conclude that most adults display preexisting antibody cross-reactivity against SARS-CoV-2...

 

= = =

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

So the authors are basically saying that people who had NOT yet been infected by COVID in British Columbia back then had indicators of immune response from OTHER, different long-circulating common coronaviruses.

 

"There are 4 circulating coronaviruses predating COVID-19 that cause up to 30% of seasonal upper respiratory tract infections (8). ... The common occurrence of circulating coronaviruses year after year and their structural similarity with SARS-CoV-2 raises the possibility that the former may stimulate cross-reactive responses toward SARS-CoV-2 and that this heterotopic immunity may impact clinical susceptibility to COVID-19 and/or modulate responses to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (10, 11)."

 

However, that notwithstanding, the authors toward the end noted back in 2021:

 

"It is unclear whether this antibody reactivity may confer clinical benefits — for instance, modulating the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data indicate that a past circulating coronavirus infection may decrease the severity of a subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection (20). Others have linked preexisting seroreactivity against circulating coronaviruses to increased SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization in vitro (5), although this remains debated." [emphasis added]

...

"These findings warrant larger studies to understand how these antibodies affect the severity of COVID-19, as well as the quality and longevity of responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8119195/

 

[Red Phoenix]

15 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

So the authors are basically saying that people who had NOT yet been infected by COVID in British Columbia back then had indicators of immune response from OTHER, different long-circulating common coronaviruses.

 

Nope, they are saying: something altogether different: In this study, we estimated that 0.60% (95%CI, 0%–2.71%) of the study population showed clear evidence of a prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.

And that was between May 17 and June 19, 2020!

Edited 2 hours ago by Red Phoenix

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

There has been subsequent research on  this that has found that having prior infections from common cold coronaviruses can lessen some impacts of subsequent COVID infections. And researchers are pursuing those kinds of relationships as a path toward developing better COVID vaccines for the future.

 

Common cold or COVID-19? Some T cells are ready to combat both

January 26, 2024

 

LA JOLLA, CA—Scientists at La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI) have found direct evidence that exposure to common cold coronaviruses can train T cells to fight SARS-CoV-2. In fact, prior exposure to a common cold coronavirus appears to partially protect mice from lung damage during a subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

...

The Shresta Laboratory is now working to develop novel vaccines purposefully designed to harness these powerful T cells. Those vaccines would protect against SARS-CoV-2 and provide immunity against several other coronaviruses with pandemic potential.

 

“Our research will help scientists design and improve ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines that elicit broad, cross-protective responses,” adds LJI Professor Sujan Shresta, Ph.D., study senior leader and member of LJI’s Center for Vaccine Innovation.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Nope, they are saying: something altogether different: In this study, we estimated that 0.60% (95%CI, 0%–2.71%) of the study population showed clear evidence of a prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.

And that was between May 17 and June 19, 2020!

 

From the cited study:

 

"In this study, we estimated that 0.60% (95%CI, 0%–2.71%) of the study population showed clear evidence of a prior infection with SARS-CoV-2... This prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections was identical to the 0.55% prevalence reported by the BC CDC on 885 residual sera obtained from an outpatient laboratory network in the Lower Mainland of BC between May 15 and May 27, 2020.

 

Data from the BC CDC represent a wider geographical catchment and do not specifically target HCW (12). The current study confirms that COVID-19 transmission in BC after the first wave was low, even among HCW, contrasting with a high seroprevalence reported among HCW in other studies (13–15), which may be attributed to the very low number of total tested cases in BC during the first wave." [emphasis added]

 

"The first pandemic wave peaked between the third week of March and late April 2020 (11). As of May 17, only 2445 diagnosed COVID-19 cases (approximately 49 of 100,000 population) had been reported in BC after the first wave, which was the lowest rate in Canada and one of the lowest rates in North America." [emphasis added]

 

In other words, localized results there that were more the exception than the rule in terms of seroprevalence at the time.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by TallGuyJohninBKK

[johng]

26 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

has found that having prior infections from common cold coronaviruses can lessen some impacts of subsequent COVID infections.

Hey that kinda sounds like a

"natural immunity"   "conspiracy theory" !!!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

For a broader look at global COVID seroprevalence rates through April 2022 - vastly higher numbers than those cited in the small OP study giving a snapshot of early pandemic findings from British Columbia:

 

Global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from January 2020 to April 2022: A systematic review and meta-analysis of standardized population-based studies

 

"Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. "

...

"We estimate that approximately 59.2% of the global population had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in September 2021 (35.9% when excluding vaccination). Global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time, from 7.7% a year before, in June 2020." [emphasis added]

 

• Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in Europe high-income countries [HICs]).

 

• After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. [emphasis added]

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9648705/

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by TallGuyJohninBKK