and, yes, i think that coverage surrounding the effectiveness of antibodies has, to say the least, been overblown.

it's the memory of the virus that's more important than the antibodies themselves. that said, i'll acknowledge that the testing seems to indicate that there's a higher percentage of people clearing the virus from their system without an immune response than was previously imagined.

so, let's logically beak down what might happen if you get the virus.

1) you might clear the virus without developing an immune response, which would essentially mean that your immune system just ate it without thinking about it twice. it may have just thought it was a variant of the common cold, and decided it wasn't worth amounting an immune response to (a very interesting conclusion, if true.). if this happens, then you are not going to be immune to the virus in the future. in theory, you could catch the disease repeatedly without getting sick, and act as a superspreader of it.

2) otherwise, you will get sick. if you get sick, that means that your body is mounting an immune response, and you should expect protective antibodies, if you beat it.

i) if you beat it, and your body successfully produces antibodies that clear it, it remembers how to produce those antibodies, again. forever. so, while antibody levels may fade over time (your body will prioritize that accordingly), you don't forget how to create the antibodies again. it's sort of a tempest in a teapot. but, note that your body may be dropping production of antibodies for this class of virus (the common cold.) because it knows that the virus mutates quickly.

ii) if you don't beat it, it's because you were unable to crack the virus' code and develop antibodies fast enough to clear it. and, you are now dead. sucks.

of course, if the virus has mutated by the next you come into contact with it then all bets are off.