Kramer writes in his pre-print that you’ve linked:
>Of note, our observations are in contrast to a recent report by Long et al. that found waning titers 8 weeks post
138 virus infection as compared to acute responses (19). Especially in asymptomatic cases, antibody
139 responses disappeared after 8 weeks in 40% of individuals in the Long et al. study. However, the
140 antibodies measured in their paper were targeting the NP plus a single linear spike epitope. Much
141 more in agreement with our data, the same paper also reports relatively stable (slightly declining)
142 neutralizing antibody titers. The stability of the antibody response over time might therefore also
143 depend on the target antigen. The titers we measure here do correlate with neutralization as
144 discussed above.
I got used to it, and the feeling went away.
I had a similar feeling when I got a bluetooth headset where I just had to tap and speak and Google would answer almost any question I had, no need to even half shout "OKAY GOOGLE" for my phone to hear. I now actually feel dumber without such a headset because I can't easily get answers to random questions.
So, yeah, we get used to these things. The measure of "being in the future" is less the awe we have at technological marvels and more the way they become common place and accepted.
I take your point, but what's sci-fi is always a receding horizon :)
AFAIK the hypothesis is that is a result of modern life being “too clean”, so not enough “unfriendly” variety to train on.
This is a bit of an oversimplification. Firstly, the peptide is 8-11 residues for cytotoxic, aka killer, T cells which i think is what we're talking about here. It's 13-17 residues for for helper T cells. Secondly, there are varieties of T cells which don't have a single target, like invariant natural killer T cells, but those are pretty obscure, and not what people are talking about when they just say "T cells".