4 ms·
It is certainly of scientific interest to know these things. But I suspect the logistics of finding out who already have been infected, and only giving them one
by ynfnehf 6y ago
It is certainly of scientific interest to know these things. But I suspect the logistics of finding out who already have been infected, and only giving them one/zero doses, is not going to be worth it. And even then, only a small portion of the population have a confirmed infection.
In the coming months a very large amount of vaccines is going to arrive in most (western/rich) countries. It is then no longer going to be important to optimize exactly who gets the vaccine, but instead to increase the vaccination rate.
- Animats 6y agoYes. "Using quantitative serological assays that measure antibodies to the spike protein could be used to screen individuals prior to vaccination if the infection history is unknown." So it's possible, with enough testing, to see if someone really needs a second shot of vaccine. Then, of course, follow up after a month, and probably again later, to see how it worked.
- ynfnehf 6y agoThat is the logistics I'm talking about. Testing was incredibly slow to scale up last spring, and scaling up tests for antibodies as well seems like unnecessary complication. We need fewer moving parts, not more.
- prepend 6y agoTiters are measured before, after first jab and before second, so logistically this is pretty easy. The methods are described in the paper. It’s basically a couple of blood draws and quite simple to get a cohort based on questionnaire given that there’s 20M confirmed cases in the US. This seems like an efficient study that could increase vaccination rate since people are more likely to get one dose rather than two. For many people, traveling to a vaccination appointment is a big deal. This also serves to help convince people who have had COVID the value in getting a vaccine.