A) No they don't, it's a different virus.
B) There are 7,324 in the entire world who are known to have had and survived SARS 2003. That's 0.0000977% of the world's population. It doesn't help the other 99.99991% even if it were true. And it isn't.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
[W]e showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS (the disease associated with SARS-CoV infection) possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.
B) There are 7,324 in the entire world who are known to have had and survived SARS 2003. That's 0.0000977% of the world's population.
Both your statements are half truths meant to mislead.
It is too bad that some people are too dense to recognize the difference between “exposed” and “had and survived”. But do not worry I know that you are well aware of the difference and are just using a typical leftist tactic to confuse the situation to lie with irrelevant statistics that actually have no connection to what is being discussed.
Signalman is correct... both COVID-19 and SARS are caused by coronaviruses. And yes several studies have shown that people who were exposed to SARS appear to have some immunity to COVID-19 that is comparable to what the current experimental gene therapy agents provide.
Israel has found that the Pfizer shots are now just 39% effective against current Covid variants. This is because Covid is constantly mutating, which is one of the primary reasons that vaccines have not been successfully used against the common cold.
39% effective in reference to a vaccine means basically worthless. Flu vaccines with this amount of effectiveness are considered failures. All of the current Covid vaccines are absolute failures.
A) No they don’t, it’s a different virus.
B) There are 7,324 in the entire world who are known to have had and survived SARS 2003. That’s 0.0000977% of the world’s population. It doesn’t help the other 99.99991% even if it were true. And it isn’t.
______________________________________________________________
Thats nice. Now explain the Diamond Princess and tell us again how Israel is doing at 39% effectiveness.
“Those who were exposed to SARS in 2003 have the antibodies against SARS COVID-19.”
A) No they don’t, it’s a different virus.
—
It’s similar enough and it has been found to be true.
—
B) There are 7,324 in the entire world who are known to have had and survived SARS 2003. That’s 0.0000977% of the world’s population. It doesn’t help the other 99.99991% even if it were true. And it isn’t.
—
Wrong, it is true but you are right the number of people who had original SARS or Mers is not enough to affect the transmission in the general populace.
But again, you are wrong and spreading false information.
2aProtectsTheRest: A) No they don't, it's a different virus.
It's not a different virus. They're both SARS coronaviruses and yes, those exposed to SARS in 2003 do have antibodies. Multiple sources have confirmed it. Here's just one:
https://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/study-finds-antibodies-from-patients-infected-with-sars-cov-in-2003-cross-neutralised-sars-cov/665536
2aProtectsTheRest: B) There are 7,324 in the entire world who are known to have had and survived SARS 2003. That's 0.0000977% of the world's population. It doesn't help the other 99.99991% even if it were true. And it isn't.
It does help. It shows that natural immunity does work and does last longer than these experimental treatments which apparently need a "booster" after only six months. There were no reports of SARS 2003 survivors having enlarged hearts, blood clotting, and nerve damage. None were reported to have lost pregnancies either.
It also shows that a true vaccine against SARS would work instead taking these experimental treatments.