Originally Posted by
FlyBitcoin
I will watch it now, but
If he did not mention the antibody testing in those patients over time, AND
did not use live viral cultures in addition to PCR testing of RNA remnants, then he is not using all of the tools in his toolbox.
Smart people speculating is still .... speculating.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And antibody testing and live viral cultures are the evidence needed here when you are declaring that exceptions to the rule exist.
If these patients are still antibody negative or are unable to produce IgG's to take over for their IgM's, then that is a potential explanation but that is on the patient, not the virus why that happens.
I didn't watch the video yet either, but from the summary here it didn't sound like it was attempting to confirm or deny immunity after the virus is gone (I agree with you there really has to be some) -- it's just giving a plausible explanation of how people are showing as "no longer infected" then "reinfected" -- basically that they hadn't really gotten rid of the active virus in the first place. Presumably/hopefully once someone does actually get rid of it there is some immunity, but it's still troublesome if we can't tell for sure if they have gotten rid of the virus because the tests aren't sensitive enough. A confirmed positive virus test that was at least, say, 4-5 months ago, combined with an antibody test, *might* give high confidence that someone can't catch/pass it on, but that isn't all that useful for "reopening" purposes.
Edit: I see you since watched it and have more comments; I will defer to your more knowledeable thoughts!