5 ms·
It seems like a voluntary test for someone without symptoms is of limited value to the individual (beyond their individual curiosity) since we don't know enough
by danans 7y ago
It seems like a voluntary test for someone without symptoms is of limited value to the individual (beyond their individual curiosity) since we don't know enough either way about reinfection risk at this point, and the result is not terribly actionable - you can't just walk into stores without a mask because you have a positive antibody test - nobody is going to trust your lab result printout as a reason to avoid public health measures.
But that said, there should be a public health benefit to broad antibody testing to understand the true infection rate, and for that reason alone, seems like tests like this
should be covered by insurance or the public purse for everyone - at least in areas with outbreaks or at high risk for outbreaks.
- lbeltrame 7y agoThe FDA suggestion of doing two tests to reduce the percentage of false positives (since you can't rule out cross-reactivity with another coronavirus) looks like a good idea for broad testing. Of course this means higher costs.
- luhn 7y ago> since you can't rule out cross-reactivity with another coronavirus If that causes a false positive, wouldn't a second test yield the same result?
- joncrane 7y agoA different test from a different company or whatever.
- lbeltrame 7y agoThat can't be discounted, but if you have two tests that target different epitopes of the virus (hence, independent), the probability of them being wrong at the same time is p_false1 * p_false2 (probability of independent events), hence much lower.
- rconti 7y agoAgreed, but even on the individual level it could be helpful. Visit family members, while still taking precautions, for example.
- CameronNemo 7y agoJust because you have antibodies does not mean you cannot spread the disease. Antibodies relate to your own body's ability to resist an infection from what I understand.
- adrr 7y agoPeople hav held off seeing their parents. If I knew i had antibodies, I’d plan a trip later in the summer to live with them and do all the shopping to decrease the risk of them getting infected. People with antibodies are the best people to provide services with the at risk population.
- sambe 7y agoParent comment: “we don't know enough either way about reinfection risk at this point” Are you disagreeing or did you miss that?
- Marsymars 7y agoI think it's pretty a pretty safe guess that given what we know about viruses work, someone who's already been infected travelling to live with parents and do their shopping for them will lead to a net decrease in infection risk.