When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2), the dominant narrative seems to be all about antibodies to achieve sterile immunity. If it is not one of a myriad of vaccine candidates and their purported protective antibody titers, then it is convalescent antibodies or perhaps one of the several new broadly neutralizing antibody approaches to treat CoV-2 infection. It is impressive how much money and effort is ongoing in the development of antibodies to deal with CoV-2 despite studies from several decades ago indicating that, while protection from coronavirus infection is achievable with antibodies, these antibodies cannot eradicate ongoing infection and therefore most likely have little therapeutic impact.1 Why then, would we spend so much effort on convalescent antibody approaches, for instance? It is not even clear that convalescent antibodies are effective and, even if a modest fraction of these antibodies were found to have some efficacy against the virus or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), how would such an approach be scaled up and distributed or even experimentally vetted without proper controlled studies and a standardized therapeutic?