Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19 (NIH)

GOD Shines Forth! said:

I’ve been seeking information on immunity for us "Covid confirmed" folks. We had it, kicked it and lived to tell. How much immunity do we have? I've read up to 17 years(!) but this NIH piece sets it at 8 months (not that it peters out there but wanes somewhat).

Anyone found info on this matter they’d be willing to share?

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19

Click to expand...

If the immunity wears off, they will have booster shots.

Regeneration has an antibody cocktail that Trump took and is shown to help infected people avoid serious symptoms, if given early enough. Manufacturing capacity is lacking.

dqhall said:

If the immunity wears off, they will have booster shots.

Regeneration has an antibody cocktail that Trump took and is shown to help infected people avoid serious symptoms, if given early enough. Manufacturing capacity is lacking.

Click to expand...

There's now quite a body of evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin as both a prophylactic and treatment.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

I’ve been seeking information on immunity for us "Covid confirmed" folks. We had it, kicked it and lived to tell. How much immunity do we have? I've read up to 17 years(!) but this NIH piece sets it at 8 months (not that it peters out there but wanes somewhat).

Anyone found info on this matter they’d be willing to share?

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19

Click to expand...

I think the 8 months is because we don't have enough data beyond that, not because it definitely stops at 8 months. I don't think you'll find anything beyond 8 month yet, and given that we're trying to vaccinate everyone, it's going to be hard to find later. (Vaccines don't necessarily work the same way as immunity from having the disease.)

The studies are also based on levels of antibodies, etc, and it's not clear just how that is reflected in actual immunity.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

There's now quite a body of evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin as both a prophylactic and treatment.

Click to expand...

I think this is still regarded as controversial at best. A couple sources:
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/04/21/bmjebm-2021-111678
and
PolitiFact - Fact-checking claim about the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19

sesquiterpene said:

I think this is still regarded as controversial at best. A couple sources:
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/04/21/bmjebm-2021-111678
and
PolitiFact - Fact-checking claim about the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19

Click to expand...

Yes, I know there's been plenty of dismissive publicity, but when a group of experienced senior clinicians specialising in relevant practice believe they've found something important and produce independent meta-analyses of the available trials to support it, and positive results from countries that have used it, I'm inclined to take it seriously. And when the CDC suggests that we need to wait for data on its safety, I'm puzzled - this is a drug that's been in use for around 40 years with about 3.7 billion doses administered (for parasitic infections), and has an excellent safety record...

Dr Tess Lawrie of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy (who provide evidence to Cochrane and the WHO) also gave a walk-through of the WHO meta-analysis recommending against it, showing that they'd made a bit of a dog's dinner of it, which I found rather unnerving - see from 14.40 onwards here:

It may turn out not to be as efficacious as is being suggested, but it seems to me that, given its wide availability and negligible cost, there is a surprising reluctance to consider it - particularly when very expensive therapeutics like Remdesivir, that have fairly low efficacy, are being widely used - in those areas that can afford them.

But time will tell, I suppose.