You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I agree that measuring antibodies doesn't tell the full story w/ regards to exposure, the true number is likely higher. But the claims were about immunity (=protection). At this point *nobody* knows who is "immune" & for how long. Neutralizing antibodies are the closest measure
OK, there is agreement that number exposed > number with antibodies. So, the disagreement is whether exposure without antibodies generate protection? If not, one would think that we would have seen many reinfections by now. What do you think? I am really appreciating your help.
Yes! We're trying to gather more data on re-infections. I do believe that infection affords (transient?) immunity. What about those with low antibodies but reactive T cells? I think we have not been able to actually look carefully yet.
Atlas is talking about immunity w/out prior infection (there will likely be some - don't forget possible genetic resistance - but we have zero evidence yet its big numbers. Atlas walks around saying we know. (We're all in agreement about protective Ts after antibodies fade)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
