We know why some people got Covid while others didn't
Researchers conducted a study exposing volunteers to SARS-CoV-2, revealing distinct infection groups and unique immune responses. Specific immune cell responses and a protective gene were identified, offering insights for future treatments and vaccine development.
Read original article
Researchers from University College London, the Wellcome Sanger Institute, and Imperial College London conducted a groundbreaking study using a controlled "challenge trial" where volunteers were intentionally exposed to the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 to understand why some individuals do not contract COVID-19. The study revealed three distinct infection groups: sustained infection, transient infection, and abortive infection. Despite differences in outcomes, all groups exhibited unique immune responses. The research identified specific immune cell responses and a protective gene, HLA-DQA2, associated with avoiding severe infection. These findings offer insights into early immune responses to new viruses and have implications for future treatments and vaccine development. By comparing data from this study with that of vaccinated or naturally infected individuals, researchers aim to enhance preparedness for future pandemics and improve vaccine efficacy. This study marks a significant step towards understanding individual variations in response to viral infections and developing more effective preventive measures.
Related
9 commentsI knew someone who - at the start of being a teacher - got sick. Then at some point her body adjusted to the constant exposure to sniffly kids and she never got sick.
> Throughout the pandemic, one of the key questions on everyone’s mind was why some people avoided getting COVID, while others caught the virus multiple times.
It was not on everyone's mind. It was the exact opposite: pre-existing immunity was one of the many things that was officially forbidden to notice. The party line was that because SARS-CoV-2 was "novel", 100% of the population would become infected upon exposure. I have very clear memories of telling lockdown-obsessed people that the models assumed a 100% susceptibility rate yet the Diamond Princess outbreak had showed this was far from true, so the modeling justifying lockdowns was wrong. The response was usually derisive. Who are you, rando programmer, to challenge expert epidemiologists?
Another case that sticks in the mind: I was having dinner with some work colleagues. They were complaining about getting COVID repeatedly post-vaccination, and reacted with amazement when I told them I'd never had COVID and also never been vaccinated. One suggested I should report myself to the authorities so they could test me and find out how I could possibly be immune despite having never been sick. I laughed and said no, I'm not going to do that. Cue appalled expressions. How could you not want to help? Well, there are lots of people who have prior immunity, this has been known for years and the authorities have deliberately ignored us because they ignore anything they don't understand and thus can't model <bafflement, shock>.
Note that the nasal spray challenge study they talk about was done in 2022. Their citation for their claim that pre-existing immunity was previously "unproven" actually goes to a study of healthcare workers from 2021 which begins "Individuals with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 do not necessarily develop PCR or antibody positivity, suggesting that some individuals may clear subclinical infection before seroconversion." Although they didn't understand the exact mechanism, the wrongness of the public health assumptions was well known at the time by the relevant people and they said nothing.
I thought maybe I was resistant because I drink so much water, haha.