The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
when I either poke a person's finger or draw blood and look at the quantification of IgG or IGM that we are typically now seeing as common test that people are doing for coronavirus we are not distinguishing whether or not neutralizing antibodies are present that is not an assay that is capable of determining this is that correct
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
you're looking at the quantity of antibody that is bound to the piece of virus that you're using in that assay and that doesn't tell you if those antibodies can bind to the region of the spike protein on the surface of the virus that is critical in binding to the receptor on the human cells for entry