3 ms·

The biggest benefit would come from antibody testing. If we could end social isolation for people who have antibodies, which is probably a very large number of

The biggest benefit would come from antibody testing. If we could end social isolation for people who have antibodies, which is probably a very large number of people, that’d be a big win.

ltbarcly3 6y ago
I agree, once they have data to support that antibodies prevent reinfection at a level that would be contagious.
- didericis 6y ago
  That data currently exists, although I’m not sure how definitive it is. A study was conducted where infected monkeys were exposed, which triggered detectable antibodies, and then exposed again. The monkeys did not show signs of the virus upon secondary exposure. I believe the biggest open question is the longevity of those antibodies and whether or not the virus mutates rapidly enough to eventually make the antibodies ineffective. Information comes from this video: https://youtu.be/kgzFAdYwYLM https://youtu.be/kgzFAdYwYLM
dawnerd 6y ago
That could be dangerous - especially if things like theme parks open up. People without antibodies might risk getting infected just so they can go out and "have fun".
- didericis 6y ago
  That risk already exists. I think we need to be realistic about containment. A full lockdown until a vaccine is released is the safest option, but it isn’t a sustainable strategy. The main thing we should focus on is keeping high risk people away from people likely to have active infections, determining hotspots/where to increase/maintain blanket lockdowns, and detecting people with active infections early/getting them to self isolate when they’re just getting sick. If someone really wants to expose themselves, there isn’t much you can do to stop them short of martial law, which starts a feedback loop of escalating civil unrest. I think you’re likely to have more success keeping people worried about being infected away from people who either don’t care or have antibodies than keeping all the people that want to go out indoors for a year.

The biggest benefit would come from antibody testing. If we could end social isolation for people who have antibodies, which is probably a very large number of people, that’d be a big win.

ltbarcly3 6y ago

I agree, once they have data to support that antibodies prevent reinfection at a level that would be contagious.

didericis 6y ago
That data currently exists, although I’m not sure how definitive it is. A study was conducted where infected monkeys were exposed, which triggered detectable antibodies, and then exposed again. The monkeys did not show signs of the virus upon secondary exposure. I believe the biggest open question is the longevity of those antibodies and whether or not the virus mutates rapidly enough to eventually make the antibodies ineffective. Information comes from this video: https://youtu.be/kgzFAdYwYLM https://youtu.be/kgzFAdYwYLM

dawnerd 6y ago

That could be dangerous - especially if things like theme parks open up. People without antibodies might risk getting infected just so they can go out and "have fun".

didericis 6y ago
That risk already exists. I think we need to be realistic about containment. A full lockdown until a vaccine is released is the safest option, but it isn’t a sustainable strategy. The main thing we should focus on is keeping high risk people away from people likely to have active infections, determining hotspots/where to increase/maintain blanket lockdowns, and detecting people with active infections early/getting them to self isolate when they’re just getting sick. If someone really wants to expose themselves, there isn’t much you can do to stop them short of martial law, which starts a feedback loop of escalating civil unrest. I think you’re likely to have more success keeping people worried about being infected away from people who either don’t care or have antibodies than keeping all the people that want to go out indoors for a year.