Is it possible to travel responsibly (during a pandemic)?

[Esprise Me]

Don't let your guard down too much around the old folks, though; nearly everyone who gets infected has at least a brief window of being pre-symptomatic but still contagious.

 

[drrich2]

New news and it's bad. Earlier on in the pandemic, the info. I saw painted a picture where people who'd had COVID-19 before were at extremely low (but not 'no') risk for reinfection later. Then this morning from MDLinx I got an e-mailing with a link to an article:
New study finds reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 in healthy young adults is common

I don't know whether you guys can see the article open when you click the link or not. I'll copy & paste some snippets:

"Paper title:SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study"

"Bottom Line: Although antibodies induced by infection to SARS-CoV-2 are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective immunity against subsequent infection, as evidenced through a longitudinal, prospective study of young Marine recruits. Previously infected study participants identified by seropositivity are susceptible to repeat infection, with nearly one-fifth the incidence rate of those without evidence of previous infection. Among the seropositive group, those who became infected again had lower antibody titers than those that were uninfected, and most lacked detectable baseline neutralizing antibodies. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination may be necessary for control of the pandemic in previously infected young adults."

"Results: Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10.1%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the six-week follow-up. In contrast, 1,079 (48.0%) of the 2,246 seronegative participants tested positive. The incidence rate ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.11-0.28, p<0.00001). Among seropositive recruits, infection was associated with lower baseline full-length protein IgG titers (p=<0.0001). Compared with seronegative recruits, seropositive recruits had about 10-fold lower viral loads and trended towards shorter duration of PCR positivity (p=0.18) and more asymptomatic infections (p=0.13). Among seropositive participants, baseline neutralizing titers were detected in 45 of 54 (83.3%) uninfected and in 6of 19 (31.6%) infected participants during the 6 weeks of observation."

"Study Conclusions: Seropositive young adults had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection compared with seronegative individuals. Although antibodies inducted by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection. These findings may be relevant for optimization of mass vaccination strategies."

This is interesting for a range of reasons. The good news is, prior infection appears protective...but not fully protective. The bad news...is our hopes for 'vaccine passports' or showing a medical letter documenting prior infection with resolution may not be the badge of coronavirus purity we might wish. These were young Marine recruits, probably a healthier group than the general American population.

Richard.

 

[Jake 10]

Thank you Richard for the excerpt above.

I flew into Puerto Rico in a United flight, and even do everyone is wearing a mask, the middle seat is occupied. There is no social distance in the plane. The risk is there!.

 

[tarponchik]

New news and it's bad. Earlier on in the pandemic, the info. I saw painted a picture where people who'd had COVID-19 before were at extremely low (but not 'no') risk for reinfection later. Then this morning from MDLinx I got an e-mailing with a link to an article:
New study finds reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 in healthy young adults is common

I don't know whether you guys can see the article open when you click the link or not. I'll copy & paste some snippets:

"Paper title:SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study"

"Bottom Line: Although antibodies induced by infection to SARS-CoV-2 are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective immunity against subsequent infection, as evidenced through a longitudinal, prospective study of young Marine recruits. Previously infected study participants identified by seropositivity are susceptible to repeat infection, with nearly one-fifth the incidence rate of those without evidence of previous infection. Among the seropositive group, those who became infected again had lower antibody titers than those that were uninfected, and most lacked detectable baseline neutralizing antibodies. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination may be necessary for control of the pandemic in previously infected young adults."

"Results: Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10.1%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the six-week follow-up. In contrast, 1,079 (48.0%) of the 2,246 seronegative participants tested positive. The incidence rate ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.11-0.28, p<0.00001). Among seropositive recruits, infection was associated with lower baseline full-length protein IgG titers (p=<0.0001). Compared with seronegative recruits, seropositive recruits had about 10-fold lower viral loads and trended towards shorter duration of PCR positivity (p=0.18) and more asymptomatic infections (p=0.13). Among seropositive participants, baseline neutralizing titers were detected in 45 of 54 (83.3%) uninfected and in 6of 19 (31.6%) infected participants during the 6 weeks of observation."

"Study Conclusions: Seropositive young adults had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection compared with seronegative individuals. Although antibodies inducted by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection. These findings may be relevant for optimization of mass vaccination strategies."

This is interesting for a range of reasons. The good news is, prior infection appears protective...but not fully protective. The bad news...is our hopes for 'vaccine passports' or showing a medical letter documenting prior infection with resolution may not be the badge of coronavirus purity we might wish. These were young Marine recruits, probably a healthier group than the general American population.

Richard.

This also means that those who were vaccinated can also spread the virus around.

 

[Dan]

Thank you Richard for the excerpt above.

I flew into Puerto Rico in a United flight, and even do everyone is wearing a mask, the middle seat is occupied. There is no social distance in the plane. The risk is there!.

Sometime you may get lucky. I flew from Houston (IAH) to Cabo (SJD) on January 6 with United using A320 (150 passenger capacity). There were only 11 passengers, including myself. So we were social distancing really well.

 

[tursiops]

This also means that those who were vaccinated can also spread the virus around.

Yes, not new information. The vaccination is for you, not for others. You continue to wear a mask and socially distance, for others.

 

[formernuke]

Which means it is not effective.

Several of us can't get the vaccine and need herd immunity. This shows that is not possible.

 

[drrich2]

Several of us can't get the vaccine and need herd immunity. This shows that is not possible.

I think it's a matter of degree. Having had COVID-19 (and presumably by extension having had the vaccine, as either way you're exposed to the spike protein the vaccine uses) doesn't guarantee you being 'corona-proof.' But...at least in the short term it did drastically reduce the odds of getting reinfected. And vaccination has been shown to not only reduce the odds of catching it to begin with, but drastically reduced the odds of severe disease.

So, mass vaccination (and lots of people having had the coronavirus) will still create major herd resistance (if that sounds more accurate than immunity), which should still slow transmission and mutation rate to produce new variants. Which should greatly reduce serious cases.

In other words, the day may be coming when the real world impact is more akin to the flu we all know (and don't love). Not extinct, but not a pandemic, either.

People who can't get the vaccine, and are already adults so they don't get exposed to the virus as children and develop 'natural' resistance,' will be in a bad spot. The question becomes why can't they, and what can be done to develop vaccines they can get.

 

[uncfnp]

New news and it's bad. Earlier on in the pandemic, the info. I saw painted a picture where people who'd had COVID-19 before were at extremely low (but not 'no') risk for reinfection later. Then this morning from MDLinx I got an e-mailing with a link to an article:
New study finds reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 in healthy young adults is common

I don't know whether you guys can see the article open when you click the link or not. I'll copy & paste some snippets:

"Paper title:SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study"

"Bottom Line: Although antibodies induced by infection to SARS-CoV-2 are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective immunity against subsequent infection, as evidenced through a longitudinal, prospective study of young Marine recruits. Previously infected study participants identified by seropositivity are susceptible to repeat infection, with nearly one-fifth the incidence rate of those without evidence of previous infection. Among the seropositive group, those who became infected again had lower antibody titers than those that were uninfected, and most lacked detectable baseline neutralizing antibodies. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination may be necessary for control of the pandemic in previously infected young adults."

"Results: Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10.1%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the six-week follow-up. In contrast, 1,079 (48.0%) of the 2,246 seronegative participants tested positive. The incidence rate ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.11-0.28, p<0.00001). Among seropositive recruits, infection was associated with lower baseline full-length protein IgG titers (p=<0.0001). Compared with seronegative recruits, seropositive recruits had about 10-fold lower viral loads and trended towards shorter duration of PCR positivity (p=0.18) and more asymptomatic infections (p=0.13). Among seropositive participants, baseline neutralizing titers were detected in 45 of 54 (83.3%) uninfected and in 6of 19 (31.6%) infected participants during the 6 weeks of observation."

"Study Conclusions: Seropositive young adults had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection compared with seronegative individuals. Although antibodies inducted by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection. These findings may be relevant for optimization of mass vaccination strategies."

This is interesting for a range of reasons. The good news is, prior infection appears protective...but not fully protective. The bad news...is our hopes for 'vaccine passports' or showing a medical letter documenting prior infection with resolution may not be the badge of coronavirus purity we might wish. These were young Marine recruits, probably a healthier group than the general American population.

Richard.

Thanks for posting. After first read a couple of thoughts.

1) We already knew that immunity was not 100% even with vaccine and certainly not post infection. We also know the vaccine induces a greater response than natural infection and most probably for a longer duration. This is in large part why there is already a recommendation for vaccine post infection.

2) We also already knew that some individuals did not show a large antibody response to natural infection and that these individuals could be more susceptible to reinfection, especially if the original infection was asymptomatic.

3) I did not see any data on how far out the individuals were from the original infection. Again, we already know that immunity wanes with time. It may be possible that the individuals with “reinfection” were beyond the period of presumed immunity.

4) Bear in mind that a positive PCR post infection does not necessarily equate infection nor contagion.

 

[formernuke]

The question becomes why can't they, and what can be done to develop vaccines they can g

Time is what it will take. Right now the list of those who can't is very intensive along with those who do becoming carriers with time and proper procedures hopefully a actual effective one can be made assuming the pharmaceutical industry is willing instead of just saying good enough.