Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
rob74
graeme
I can't find the reference, but there was a recent dutch preprint on a study from 1985-2020, studying four other coronaviruses and reinfection. Immunity lasted 6-12 months, reinfection was correlated with symptoms. Unclear if symptoms were as severe, or merely symptomatic.
Antibodies 50% gone by six months, 75% by a year.
Also highly seasonal, for what it's worth. Only 10 patients, all in the Netherlands, but a long study period.
blueblimp
This isn't the one you're thinking of, but it has similar conclusions: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long....
"They found that people frequently got reinfected with the same coronavirus, even in the same year, and sometimes more than once. Over a year and a half, a dozen of the volunteers tested positive two or three times for the same virus, in one case with just four weeks between positive results."
isoprophlex
Well, that doesn't bode well for vaccine development, or does it?
oxymoron
SARS-COV-2 is more closely related to SARS-COV-1 than to other HCOVs, and the original SARS triggers longer lasting immunity (1year+). We don’t know if that’s the case for SARS-COV-2, but at least it’s an open possibility.
Encouragingly, there seems to be a degree of cross-immunity between HCOV’s. This paper touches on the possible implications: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6493/860
koheripbal
This is one of the interesting things about Coronaviruses, in general. They don't mutate nearly as much as influenza viruses - but they also don't have to because they can re-infect people anyway (albeit usually to a lesser degree).
The vaccine will be interesting to see. There's a fair chance it will confer some immunity, but that those infected will may get a little sick.
s1artibartfast
I'm not an expert, but there are different types of antibodies (IGG, IGA, ect). Some are short term responses while others are long term. There are tests for both, and I wonder if this is a factor.
dehrmann
I'm surprised this hasn't encouraged more aggressive antibody testing of random people to better estimate the virus's spread and source more blood.
evan_
Oregon has established a program where a representative 100,000 people statewide are being tested on a regular basis to monitor the spread.
https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/05/how-oregons-s...
morsch
10000 of them will be tested[1] regardless of symptoms. Very nice. I don't understand (and have often wondered) why we, in Europe, haven't been doing this for months. Plenty of testing capacity.
[1] the article doesn't specify, but presumably a PCR test
eveningcoffee
Luxembourg is planning nation wide testing https://www.fnr.lu/research-luxembourg-announcement-of-large... and already performed a serological study https://www.fnr.lu/research-luxembourg-first-results-of-the-...
Also other EU countries have done number of studies but results are often published in their own language only.
trhway
In Moscow the post-covid blood donors are getting $70 for 600ml of plasma instead of regular $50.
daenz
I donate blood semi-regularly, and they have been hammering my inbox lately about giving again. I am sure donations have dried up and the reserves are low, but I am wondering, if I unknowingly had C19 and recovered, would the blood donation banks profit from this?
ken
The blood bank “profits” from every donation. That’s what a donation is.
If you’re asking if they specifically test plasma for COVID-19 antibodies and scalp it to brokers, my guess is “probably not”. My blood bank has documentation about the disease tests they do, and they say nothing about testing for COVID-19 in particular.
disabled
> The blood bank “profits” from every donation. That’s what a donation is.
This especially applies for plasma donations, even though plasma donors (often poor people, and predominantly in the US) are paid for their donations (although a meager amount considering what is involved along with the side effects of plasmapheresis). Basically the US effectively supplies the majority of blood products for the world, and plasma is a precious human resource. The US also has extremely lax rules on plasma donation.
There have been scandals relatively recently around paid plasma, where Mexican nationals on visitor visas cross the border 2-3 times a week to do this. The donations can in some cases be enough income to get by in Mexico (or so I heard, but probably not well). This is important due to cartel violence, as it is considered to be "safer".
However, watch the video on this page which details the scandal: https://www.propublica.org/article/pharmaceutical-companies-...
The 2 main people in this video, Mexican nationals, ended up having severe health effects from the frequent (and legal) plasma donation route. In fact, the female in the video literally had a secondary immune deficiency from donating plasma so much, and if she continues (she was advised not to, by a Mexican doctor) she definitely can end up with a primary immune deficiency and other severe health problems.
Sure, plasma donations are necessary (I require a blood product due to a rare neurological disease affecting my peripheral nervous system) but it is some really sad stuff, too.
> If you’re asking if they specifically test plasma for COVID-19 antibodies and scalp it to brokers
Sometimes these plasma companies do test regular donors for certain (often rare) antibodies, such as for whatever shot that is given to Rh negative mothers who are pregnant with a child that could be Rh positive.
dehrmann
> Sometimes these plasma companies do test regular donors for certain (often rare) antibodies, such as for whatever shot that is given to Rh negative mothers who are pregnant with a child that could be Rh positive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor)
This guy is in Wikipedia for being a blood donor. He's estimated to have saved 2.4 million lives.
ken
There seems to be a big difference between “plasma companies”, and nonprofit research institutes which collect blood donations.
I know factually that many people are paid for plasma, and that there’s a reason for it, but I’ve never been, and the concept feels very strange to me.
The American Red Cross says plasma can be donated every 28 days, and my local blood bank follows this guideline. Donating twice a week is insane. Plasmapheresis is safe. Undergoing any procedure 10 times more frequently than recommended by doctors is a recipe for trouble.
dehrmann
I get how there's a fear that paid donations would encourage people to either over-donate or people who shouldn't donate to donate, but it also feels sketchy that between patients, hospitals, middlemen, and collectors, money's exchanging hands at every level except the donor.
disabled
Yeah, that is absolutely correct. I am not blaming the individuals here, and often they do not have any other choice. The plasma companies have quite the history involving scandals see: https://web.archive.org/web/20170401035608/http://taintedblo...
Generally blood products derived from plasma cost about double for the exact same quantity in the US, compared to other developed countries with universal healthcare (excluding Switzerland). For example, the going rate for the blood product I take, in the developed world, is 40 Euro per gram (roughly $50/gram). My US health insurance pays out (not what is being billed by the provider--which is way, way more), under contract, $100/gram for the blood product. I take around a couple hundred to a few hundred grams per month. So, yes, even that alone is scandalous.
disabled
Absolutely, many of the plasma companies have joined a coalition to streamline donations from COVID-19 positive patients in the US. The US supplies the majority of blood products derived from plasma (in this case antibodies) overall, to the rest of the world. The US is literally the OPEC of plasma donations, although there are serious ethical concerns about how lax the rules are regarding donation frequency and how it is monitored. There have also been recent scandals. See: https://www.propublica.org/article/pharmaceutical-companies-... (specifically watch the video)
Some of those companies believe that they will have a hyper-immune (A shot that is given to somebody that is COVID-19 positive, to help them recover. It is literally pooled COVID-19 antibodies from several donors, so antibody levels are as not as big of a deal compared to getting an "infusion" of convalescent plasma from a single donor. But antibody levels still do matter!) COVID-19 product to use by July, although it will still need to go through clinical trials. We are literally one of the few countries in the world equipped to do this and scale it, due to our plasma donation infrastructure (however, it exploits the poor, and that is tragic).
As somebody who takes a plasma product containing antibodies from thousands of donors (subcutaneous immunoglobulin) due to a rare chronic health condition , I would be surprised if the hyperimmune COVID-19 product was found NOT to be effective.
vinay427
I've never heard of these companies that pay donors and every donation that I have been to was whole blood or RBC, administered by the Red Cross (in the US and otherwise).
Would what you wrote apply to a lesser degree for whole blood or red blood cell donations?
I'm sure they make a profit on any type of blood donations but as it's ostensibly a non-profit I would assume most of it gets funneled back into funding other Red Cross services, but now I'm actually curious.
disabled
It really only applies to plasma donations. Plasma donations outside of the Red Cross and other nonprofits are usually paid. This plasma is made into blood products (as in medicines that are approved by a government regulatory body), and is facilitated by plasma companies (almost always publicly traded companies on the stock market), who own these plasma donation centers which pay the donors. They also create the blood product and get the regulatory body approval (like via the FDA) for the medicine that they bring to market. Here is a website about it, but I would take it with a grain of salt as this is from the coalition of plasma companies themselves: https://www.donatingplasma.org/donation/plasma
How Blood-Plasma Companies Target the Poorest Americans: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/plasma-...
The plasma companies have experienced their share of scandals too: https://web.archive.org/web/20170401035608/http://taintedblo...
In more recent times: https://www.propublica.org/article/pharmaceutical-companies-...
Vinnl
This might be different per country, but in the Netherlands (where you do not get paid for donating), they've specifically said that while they're performing research on the spread of the virus, their testing is not accurate enough to detect individual cases - so I presume they wouldn't be able to profit from those either.
jonplackett
If a patient gives too much of their blood for this, would they have less antibodies for themselves if they get reinfected?
entropy_
They would die of blood loss before that happens
jstanley
No they wouldn't. The blood (including antibodies) that is removed has been removed.
The question is equivalent to "if you give blood, doesn't that mean you have less blood for yourself?" and the answer is "yes, for a little while".
jonplackett
I don't mean all at once! I mean if they went back and gave antibodies multiple times. Does the body keep replicating antibodies too? There seems to be some concern if we'll actually be immune as it is.
undefined
bookofjoe
>$1,000 for one milliliter
deepspace
I am not able to access the article due to the paywall, but I assume that the high prices are being charged by hospitals to researchers, and that the volume of blood per patient is very low - test quantities vs donation/transfusion quantities.
I can imagine that there would be a huge market for large quantities of donated blood from recovered patients for transfusion purposes, so I would expect to see several business sprout up in short order to exploit this market.
nickpp
Well, hopefully there is a free market where those who went through the horror of having the disease can sell their blood to at least recoup some of the hospitalization and missed work costs and ensure optimal allocation of this "hot commodity" they went through so much to posses.
Oh wait, they can’t - the government, in its infinite wisdom, made sure they are protected from themselves and cannot be taken advantage of...
Get ready for shortages then.
dang
Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. It's not what this place is for.
okamiueru
There are so many other ways of organising a society, that avoid the problems you are mentioning altogether.
Instead of thinking its a problem that there are protections that limit what you can offer to be part of medical treatment or development of treatments for others... perhaps consider the issues of financial impact to begin with. They wouldn't need to recoup their costs.
I'll guess that you are from the US, where getting sick is tantamount to financial ruin for a significant part of the population.
baddox
When a solution to a problem is banned by the government, it’s no consolation to say “well, if society was completely reorganized, the problem might never have existed in the first place.”
giantDinosaur
Rather than ethically fraught body fluid markets, why not just pay people for 'missed work costs'? Sick leave is a perfectly reasonable policy that governments interested in public health should support.
lixtra
Because then there’s less incentive to give your blood, so it doesn’t solve the problem at hand.
giantDinosaur
The government can likewise introduce legislation (or whatever) to allow for emergency blood donations with payment if it turned out to be the best solution to covid. But I was responding to the criticism that it should be allowed for recouping the costs linked to a lack of sick leave and precarious working conditions, where it seems exactly the wrong solution.
nickpp
Solving a botched government intervention with another botched government intervention, huh? That is how Venezuela got to be the amazing success story that it is.
giantDinosaur
You cannot be seriously suggesting that government mandated sick leave results in Venezuela. I'm living in a country that provides mandated sick leave (which should be expanded to more casual workers, especially in this context, at least temporarily) and, shockingly, we haven't gone the way of Venezuela. Nobody should have to sell their blood to recover costs - if things are that dire, there needs to be a proper support system in place, and in exceptional times that certainly includes some level of sick leave support for low paid/casual workers.
jayd16
Yeah lets incentivize getting sick as a high risk venture. Sounds like a great idea.
We should legalize for profit organ harvesting and do something about this child labor shortage.
JoeSmithson
The perverse incentives created by a lucrative market in covid19 blood - and the potentially diasterous consequences - should be fairly easy to see.
nickpp
So to avoid "potentially disastrous consequences", we disallow the hole thing, losing the very palpable benefits as well.
Damn, next we should banish cars, planes, rockets and fire itself! The potential disastrous consequences are just too great...
JoeSmithson
Making a large financial incentive to catch Covid19 would be a net benefit to the world, in your opinion?
natalyarostova
Which is particularly sad, as our lower income essential workers suffered through this the most, and we deprive them of a chance to at least get a payout...
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
> For instance, Biomex said supply is drying up as the number of cases in Germany falls. Another issue: Only around a third of donations have high enough concentrations of antibodies to be used as a positive control for antibody tests.
I'm not sure I understand this: if you are looking at recovered patients, the number can only grow, albeit slower if there are less new cases? Or do the patients have to be very recently recovered? Is the issue with the antibody concentration related to the severity of the disease or to the time since recovery? If the antibody concentration falls so sharply after recovery, that doesn't sound good for long term immunity...