FormulaNova said..








Isn't that essentially the same thing though. you are introducing something into your body that looks like the virus, in this case a particular protein that the virus has, and the body creates anytibodies against anything with that protein. The important point I am trying to make is that immunity is not instant, its making your body respond to something, which takes a while. Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...

"Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein-or even just a piece of a protein-that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."

Wasn't the antibody test the reason they stopped the other trial as the antibodies looked like you had a response to HIV, whereas it was just the response to the engineered deactivated virus they were using. No chance of getting HIV, but enough of a negative perception that they though the public would not accept it.

Kamikuza said..








I don't think so -- the Pfizer etc mRNA thingy tells cells to make the spike proteins that then get attacked by T-cells, so when the SARS virus shows up with *its* spike-protein covered self, it gets attacked by the now-educated T-cells. There's none of the original virus involved.

Again, I don't think so -- it will depend on the test used: www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics

AFAIK the RT-PCR test is the main one being used...? So if you used anti-body tests on someone who's had the vaccine, they'd test positive but that wouldn't actually tell you if they had the viral infection, I guess.

You're right about the negative perception though.