Annabelle Krause - We Still Don't Know What COVID-19 Immunity Means or How Long It Lasts

 Annabelle Krause

AP Bio

11/17/2020

de Jesus, Erin Garcia. “We Still Don't Know What COVID-19 Immunity Means or How Long It Lasts.” Science News, 21 Oct. 2020, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-herd-immunity-immune-response-antibodies. 

Some politicians and a few epidemiologists have suggested that herd immunity, or a significant enough portion of the low-risk population getting infected and having immunity, is the proper way to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, “around 40 to 60 percent of a population would need to be infected to reach [the point of herd immunity].”  This begs the question, is it worth it to put that significant of a percentage of the low-risk community at risk of COVID-19 complications to reach herd immunity?  Many epidemiologists have argued that, no, it is not worth it and that we must wait for a vaccine before life can go back to normal.  One key reason as to why herd immunity is almost impossible to attain is that we know very little about COVID-19 immunity.  Immunity is “resistance to a disease gained through the immune system’s exposure to it, either by infection or through vaccination.”  And it is attained by having a virus and either having T cells or B cells or possibly both.  T cells are cells that remember the pathogen and trigger a rapid response through the coordination of the immune system to a known pathogen.  B cells produce antibodies which are proteins that allow the body to fight off a pathogen.  When a person recovers from an infection, the antibodies stick around which makes it easier for a person to beat the same virus twice.  These cell responses can result in two different types of immunity: sterilizing immunity, which is rare and guarantees that “the virus never gets a chance to begin replicating and never infects a cell” or the more common partial immunity which triggers a “rapid response that may make the second bout of the disease less severe, or less easily transmitted.”  And, even if a patient does have antibodies, it is unclear how long they last or if they are truly a sign of immunity.  Patients generally have been observed to have been generating neutralizing antibodies, which is promising, but it is still not necessarily enough for protection.  COVID-19 patients also are likely to have T cells which may give them immunity.  But, it is unclear how effective and protective these T cells are.  Some of the general population may also have applicable T cells, called cross-reactive T cells, which are immune cells left over from previous coronaviruses (like the common cold) that help reduce the impact of COVID-19.  But, some T cells could make a person’s reaction to COVID-19 worse by causing a condition called cytokine storm which overstimulates the immune system.  Overall, herd immunity is likely impossible, and the best approach to combatting COVID-19 is waiting for a vaccine and vaccinating a significant percentage of the population.

This article is extremely relevant right now, although it is less relevant than it was a week ago.  Many politicians have asserted that herd immunity would be an effective solution to COVID-19 and allow the United States to reopen its economy fully.  However, the science described in this article has disproved that assertion.  With the development of a promising vaccine, this article is less relevant because an end is (hopefully) on the horizon.  But, it is still important for people to keep in mind that getting COVID-19 does not mean that they are immune and that they should not try and get COVID-19 for that purpose.  It is also a reminder that this pandemic is extremely unknown overall and that even the scientists know very little.

This article was quite easy to understand and succinct in explaining the science.  I appreciated that they explained complicated concepts around immunity in simple terms that made it possible for this very important issue to be generally understood.  I personally would have appreciated if the author had given more of their own opinion and chosen a side more rather than going back on forth on the issue.  I understand that there really is no answer, and as such it is difficult for the author to back one side, but it would have been more clear and had a stronger message if the author had done that.  It also would have been interesting if the author had spent some time considering the political implications of the herd immunity versus vaccine debate instead of presenting only the science.