Ironic indeed. How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites. It's less than 2%, not 1/3, that don't develop antibodies.
> How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites.
The dude is a MD PhD who's been on NPR, NYT, etc. He's literally a scientist who is a source -- a scientific source.
But sure, we can talk journal articles.
Where is your "less than 2%" number coming from? I see this in the first Nature article:
> Of the 125 subjects exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to the baseline ground truth definition, 101 (80.8%) participated to the May serosurvey. Among them, 93.5% (86 out of 92, 95% CI 86.3–97.6%), 84.2% (85 out of 101, 95% CI 75.5–90.7%), and 100% (92 out of 92, 95% CI 96.1–100%) had a positive result for Abbott, DiaSorin and Roche, respectively, whereas 44.9% (44 out of 98, 95% CI 34.8–55.3%) had a neutralising titre greater than 1:40 (1/dil). In November, 86 subjects (68.8%) were tested again, all of them except one (98.8%) tested positive to at least one serological assay.
They're saying that 44.9% of people infected had neutralizing antibodies at the level they recognize, right? They re-tested the same people six months later, and >98% of them tested positive for one assay. This doesn't speak to the 98% number you cite above. Maybe you're looking elsewhere.
I'm not going to be sealioned into going through studies if you can't point me to the section that supports your point.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24622-7#Sec2
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9