Tuesday, August 31, 2021

ANS -- Immunity To COVID-19 Could Last Longer Than You'd Think

Here's an interesting article saying that the vaccine induced immunity goes down initially after vaccination, but then goes back up and gets better, and may last your whole like.  It takes six months to get good.  I hope this is right.... The article is from NPR.  



--Kim


Immunity To COVID-19 Could Last Longer Than You'd Think

3-Minute Listen
How the mRNA vaccine protects you against COVID-19.
Malaka Gharib/NPR

All around the world, there seem to be signs that immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19, doesn't last very long after you're vaccinated.

Israel is now having one of the world's worst COVID-19 surges about five months after vaccinating a majority of its population. And in the U.S., health officials are recommending a booster shot eight months after the original vaccine course.

So, how long does immunity last after two doses of the vaccine? Six months or so? And at that point, how much protection is left over?

It all depends on which type of immunity you're talking about, says immunologist Ali Ellebedy at Washington University in St. Louis. Six months after your vaccine, your body may be more ready to fight off the coronavirus than you might think.

"If you were vaccinated six months ago, your immune system has been training for six months — you are better ready to fight a COVID-19 infection," says Ellebedy.

A series of new studies, including two led by Ellebedy, suggests that mRNA vaccines like those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna trigger the immune system to establish long-term protection against severe COVID-19 — protection that likely will last several years or even longer, Ellebedy says.

Article continues after sponsor message

To understand what he's talking about, let's say you received the second Moderna or Pfizer vaccine six months ago. Right away, your immune system got to work and began making antibodies.

These antibodies are a bit like archers outside the moat of a castle. They set up in the lining of your nose and throat, ready to shoot down (aka neutralize) any SARS-CoV-2 particles that try to enter the moat (aka your nasal tissue).

These antibodies can prevent an infection, says bioimmunologist Deepta Bhattacharya at the University of Arizona. They stop the virus from entering cells and setting up shop. They are the body's front-line defense.

But right after vaccination, this initial round of antibodies has a few problems. The antibodies are a bit wimpy. They're not that well trained at killing SARS-CoV-2, and they're not very durable, Bhattacharya says.

About a month after the second mRNA shot, the number of antibodies in the blood reaches its peak level and then starts to decline. The antibodies themselves degrade and the cells that make them die, a study published in the journal Nature reported in June.

This happens with every vaccine, whether it's for COVID-19, the flu or measles, Bhattacharya says. "In every single immune response, there is a sharp rise in antibodies, a period of sharp decline, and then it starts to settle into a more stable nadir."

The media has largely focused on this decline of antibodies as the cause of "waning immunity." And it's true, Bhattacharya says, that this decline in antibodies, combined with the high potency of the delta variant, which began dominating many countries this year, is likely increasing the rate of infection in fully vaccinated people.

"If you get a big dose of delta, as the variant often gives, the virus can slip past the initial wall of antibodies," he says. "So I think we may be seeing some signs of that. But the [level of breakthrough infections] is probably not as dramatic as I think it's being made out to be."

Why? Because the media has largely overlooked several key facts about the antibodies present eight months after the vaccine. For starters, they're more powerful than the original ones triggered by the vaccine, Bhattacharya says.

While the first round of archers (antibodies) was out guarding the moat of your castle (respiratory tract), the immune system wasn't just sitting around idly, hoping those soldiers would be enough. Instead, it was busy training better archers — and a whole bunch of foot soldiers too.

After your second shot, the immune system sets up a training center in the lymph nodes to teach special cells how to make more powerful antibodies, the Nature paper from June reported.

"The quality of the antibody improves over time. It takes far fewer of those new antibodies to protect you," Bhattacharya says. "So I think that worrying about antibody decline is not something that's productive," he adds.

At the same time, the cells that make these souped-up antibodies become souped up themselves, he adds. In the training center, they learn how to make a huge amount of the highly powerful antibodies.

"These cells are remarkable," Bhattacharya says. "They're estimated to spit out something like 10,000 antibody molecules per second." So you don't need many of these cells to protect you against a future infection.

"We've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations to figure out how many of these cells are needed to protect a mouse from a lethal infection. It's three," Bhattacharya says. "Of course, we're bigger than mice. But you get the sense that it doesn't take many to offer good protection."

On top of that, these cells learn something remarkable in the training center: how to persist. "They're essentially given the gift of eternity," says immunologist Ellebedy.

He and his colleagues have found that by about six months after vaccination, these antibody-producing cells go into the bone marrow, where they can live for decades, perhaps even a lifetime, studies have found, and continue to produce antibodies the entire time. In one 2008 study, researchers identified antibodies that could neutralize the 1918 flu in the blood of people who were exposed to the virus 90 years earlier.

"We looked in the bone marrow and have seen these cells in people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2," Ellebedy says. "Now we are finishing research that shows these cells appear in the bone marrow after vaccination as well."

Called long-lived plasma cells, these cells will likely pump out antibodies into the blood for decades, Ellebedy says, giving people some sustained, long-term protection against SARS-CoV-2. (There is a caveat: If the virus changes too much, these antibodies won't be as effective.)

"The antibodies are maintained at very low levels, but they're the first line of defense against an infection," Ellebedy says. "If you're taken by surprise by SARS-CoV-2, these antibodies will slow down the replication of the virus" — until reinforcements come along.

And reinforcements will likely come!

On top of training up better archers (antibodies) and factories to create them (plasma cells), the immune system has also been training up the equivalent of foot soldiers, several studies have found. These foot soldiers are called memory B cells and memory T cells, and they largely serve as a surveillance system, looking for other cells infected with SARS-CoV-2.

"They're patrolling all over," Ellebedy says, checking to see if a cell has SARS-CoV-2 hiding in it. "It's almost like going through the neighborhood, house by house, and just making sure it's clean."

These foot soldiers can't prevent an infection from initially occurring, but they can quickly stop one once it occurs, says immunologist Jennifer Gommerman at the University of Toronto. "Because of the vaccine-generated 'memory' of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, you get a very brisk cellular immune response."




OK. So now we've got all the information to understand what's going on with the COVID-19 vaccine and immune durability.

About six months after the shots, the antibodies in the blood have fallen — as expected. They're also a bit less effective against the delta variant. "Together, that means there are more symptomatic infections as we go further out from the vaccination rollout," Gommerman says.

But in vaccinated people, these infections will most likely be mild or moderate because the immune system isn't starting from scratch. In fact, it's the opposite. It has been training cells and antibodies for months.

"You still have all this immunity inside of your body that will then say, 'OK, we've had a breach, and it's time to bring in the cellular immunity and respond to this threat,' " Gommerman says. "And because of vaccination, you have cells that can do that really quickly."

And so, overall, you'll be less sick than if you weren't vaccinated and be much less likely to end up in the hospital, she says.

"That's really what the vaccines were designed to do — to teach the immune system to deal with this invader if an infection does occur," Gommerman says. "And the vaccines do that remarkably well."


Thursday, August 19, 2021

ANS -- HCR August 18, 2021 (Wednesday) About Afghanistan

Here's another from Heather Cox Richardson.  It's about what's happening in Afghanistan.  And here is my comment.  

I hear that what Ghani has is not cash, but the codes to the national bank. He can't access them, but with him gone, neither can the Taliban access them.
Without all the foreign money, the Taliban won't be able to run a government -- they won't be able to pay for it, and they don't have the expertise. A government needs bureaucrats, not fighters. Which means, the cities will lack garbage collection, street repairs, lighting, and all the other things the makes it possible for a large number of people to live in close proximity. What will they do?



August 18, 2021 (Wednesday)
It is still early days, and the picture of what is happening in Afghanistan now that the Taliban has regained control of the country continues to develop.
Central to affairs there is money. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, with about half its population requiring humanitarian aid this year and about 90% of its people living below the poverty line of making $2 a day.
The country depends on foreign aid. Under the U.S.-supported Afghan government, the United States and other nations funded about 80% of Afghanistan's budget. In 2020, foreign aid made up about 43% of Afghanistan's GDP (the GDP, or gross domestic product, is the monetary value of all the goods and services produced in a country), down from 100% of it in 2009.
This is a huge problem for the Taliban, because their takeover of the country means that the money the country so desperately needs has dried up. The U.S. has frozen billions of dollars of Afghan government money held here in the U.S. The European Union and Germany have also suspended their financial support for the country, and today the International Monetary Fund blocked Afghanistan's access to $460 million in currency reserves.
Adam M. Smith, who served on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, told Jeff Stein of the Washington Post that the financial squeeze is potentially "cataclysmic for Afghanistan." It threatens to spark a humanitarian crisis that, in turn, will create a refugee crisis in central Asia. Already, the fighting in the last eight months has displaced more than half a million Afghans.
People fleeing from the Taliban threaten to destabilize the region more generally. While Russia was happy to support the Taliban in a war against the U.S., now that its fighters are in charge of the country, Russia needs to keep the Taliban's extremism from spreading to other countries in the area. So it is tentatively saying supportive things about the Taliban, but it is also stepping up its protection of neighboring countries' borders with Afghanistan. Other countries are also leery of refugees in the region: large numbers of refugees have, in the past, led countries to turn against immigrants, giving a leg up to right-wing governments.
Canada and Britain are each taking an additional 20,000 Afghan women leaders, reporters, LGBTQ people, and human rights workers on top of those they have already volunteered to take, but Turkey—which is governed by strongman president Recep Tayyip Erdogan—is building a wall to block refugees, and French President Emmanuel Macron asked officials in Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to prevent migrants reaching their countries from traveling any further. The European Union has asked its member states to take more Afghan refugees.
In the U.S., the question of Afghan refugees is splitting the Republican Party, with about 30% of it following the hard anti-immigrant line of former president Donald Trump. Others, though, especially those whose districts include military installations, are saying they welcome our Afghan allies.
The people fleeing the country also present a problem for those now in control of Afghanistan. The idea that people are terrified of their rule is a foreign relations nightmare, at the same time that those leaving are the ones most likely to have the skills necessary to help govern the country. But leaders can't really stop the outward flow—at least immediately—because they do not want to antagonize the international community so thoroughly that it continues to withhold the financial aid the country so badly needs. So, while on the streets, Taliban fighters are harassing Afghans who are trying to get away, Taliban leaders are saying they will permit people to evacuate, that they will offer blanket amnesty to those who opposed them, and also that they will defend some rights for women and girls.
The Biden administration is sending more personnel to help evacuate those who want to leave. The president has promised to evacuate all Americans in the country—as many as 15,000 people—but said only that we would evacuate as many of the estimated 65,000 Afghans who want to leave as possible. The Taliban has put up checkpoints on the roads to the airport and are not permitting everyone to pass. U.S. military leaders say they will be able to evacuate between 5000 and 9000 people a day.
Today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark A. Milley tried to explain the frantic rush to evacuate people from Afghanistan to reporters by saying: "There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days." Maybe. But military analyst Jason Dempsey condemned the whole U.S. military project in Afghanistan when he told NPR's Don Gonyea that the collapse of the Afghan government showed that the U.S. had fundamentally misunderstood the people of Afghanistan and had tried to impose a military system that simply made no sense for a society based in patronage networks and family relationships.
Even with Dempsey's likely accurate assessment, the statement that U.S. military intelligence missed that a 300,000 person army was going to melt away still seems to me astonishing. Still, foreign policy and national security policy analyst Dr. John Gans of the University of Pennsylvania speculated on Twitter that such a lapse might be more "normal"—his word and quotation marks—than it seems, reflecting the slips possible in government bureaucracy. He points out that the Department of Defense has largely controlled Afghanistan and the way the U.S. involvement there was handled in Washington. But with the end of the military mission, the Defense Department was eager to hand off responsibility to the State Department, which was badly weakened under the previous administration and has not yet rebuilt fully enough to handle what was clearly a complicated handoff. "There have not been many transitions between an American war & an American diplomatic relationship with a sovereign, friendly country," Gans wrote. "Fewer still when the friendly regime disintegrates so quickly." When things started to go wrong, they snowballed.
And yet, the media portrayal of our withdrawal as a catastrophe also seems to me surprising. To date, at least as far as I have seen, there have been no reports of such atrocities as the top American diplomat in Syria reported in the chaos when the U.S. pulled out of northern Syria in 2019. Violence against our Kurdish allies there was widely expected and it indeed occurred. In a memo made public in November of that year, Ambassador William V. Roebuck wrote that "Islamist groups" paid by Turkey were deliberately engaged in ethnic cleansing of Kurds, and were committing "widely publicized, fear-inducing atrocities" even while "our military forces and diplomats were on the ground." The memo continued: "The Turkey operation damaged our regional and international credibility and has significantly destabilized northeastern Syria."
Reports of that ethnic cleansing in the wake of our withdrawal seemed to get very little media attention in 2019, perhaps because the former president's first impeachment inquiry took up all the oxygen. But it strikes me that the sensibility of Roebuck's memo is now being read onto our withdrawal from Afghanistan although conditions there are not—yet—like that.
For now, it seems, the drive to keep the door open for foreign money is reining in Taliban extremism. That caution seems unlikely to last forever, but it might hold for long enough to complete an evacuation.
Much is still unclear and the situation is changing rapidly, but my guess is that keeping an eye on the money will be crucial for understanding how this plays out.
Meanwhile, the former president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, has surfaced in the United Arab Emirates. He denies early reports that he fled the country with suitcases full of cash.
5.5K5.5K
598 Comments
2.2K Shares