4 ms·

> “ recipients of vaccines with low efficacy or those who are immunocompromised2 (although people who did not respond robustly to the primary vaccination” How

> “ recipients of vaccines with low efficacy or those who are immunocompromised2 (although people who did not respond robustly to the primary vaccination” How do we measure it? Like is there a way to know through antibody tests?

exhilaration 5y ago
If you want to know whether you need the booster or not, and you're in the US, the spike antibody test ("COVID-19 Blood Spike Protein AB") falls under Covid testing, so if you have insurance it's covered with no out of pocket expense. You can get it at most urgent care clinics, and then you can find out exactly what your antibody levels are. I got my Moderna 2nd shot in February and my antibody levels are 1483 (out of 2500) so I am satisfied and not in any hurry to get the booster.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  1. Determining how much real-world protection you have against infection, hospitalization and death is a lot more complex than antibody titers. Everybody is different, every infection is different and even in the healthy population, everyone's immune response to the vaccine will be somewhat different. My understanding is that it's entirely possible a person with antibody levels lower than yours might be at lower risk than you in the real world because of their health compared to yours, the strength of their immune system compared to yours, etc. 2. Antibodies are only one part of the immunity equation. In the long run, T and B cells are probably just as important if not more important than antibodies. This is another area where it's reasonable to expect that YMWV when you get vaccinated. 3. My understanding is that in the context of vaccines these tests are used primarily to assess whether an individual had an immune response to the vaccines, not to make a meaningful determination of how much protection they have (because there's no "formula" for this). 4. It appears from the Delta-related data that any relationship between antibody titers and risk is influenced by variants. 5. We shouldn't rule out environmental factors in the protection equation. For example, if you work in an environment where you're exposed to high viral loads on a regular basis, it seems possible that you could be at higher risk than somebody who isn't even if you have higher antibody titers.
nradov 5y ago
There is more to immunity than antibody tests. Antibody levels typically drop after a while, but memory cells remain active.
Zigurd 5y ago
Even if there is a good answer to "How do we measure it?" it might cost more to know than it does to administer a third shot. There remains an argument (or a "rebuke," as the article puts it) that first world countries that are well placed to administer booster shots to the fully vaccinated should instead contribute to faster vaccination worldwide, even on a self-interested basis in order to reduce the cases where new variants can emerge. But that is a tenuous argument. A simple first question unanswered in the article is: How much of the unvaccinated population lives where vaccines requiring ULT freezers can be distributed? It may be that every place well equipped to use those kinds of vaccines will do best to get their total vaccination rate as high as possible and administer booster shots to reduce breakthrough infections, so normal activity can resume. Supply chain disruption is not a trivial problem. Having safe workplaces is not a luxury.

exhilaration 5y ago

If you want to know whether you need the booster or not, and you're in the US, the spike antibody test ("COVID-19 Blood Spike Protein AB") falls under Covid testing, so if you have insurance it's covered with no out of pocket expense. You can get it at most urgent care clinics, and then you can find out exactly what your antibody levels are. I got my Moderna 2nd shot in February and my antibody levels are 1483 (out of 2500) so I am satisfied and not in any hurry to get the booster.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
1. Determining how much real-world protection you have against infection, hospitalization and death is a lot more complex than antibody titers. Everybody is different, every infection is different and even in the healthy population, everyone's immune response to the vaccine will be somewhat different. My understanding is that it's entirely possible a person with antibody levels lower than yours might be at lower risk than you in the real world because of their health compared to yours, the strength of their immune system compared to yours, etc. 2. Antibodies are only one part of the immunity equation. In the long run, T and B cells are probably just as important if not more important than antibodies. This is another area where it's reasonable to expect that YMWV when you get vaccinated. 3. My understanding is that in the context of vaccines these tests are used primarily to assess whether an individual had an immune response to the vaccines, not to make a meaningful determination of how much protection they have (because there's no "formula" for this). 4. It appears from the Delta-related data that any relationship between antibody titers and risk is influenced by variants. 5. We shouldn't rule out environmental factors in the protection equation. For example, if you work in an environment where you're exposed to high viral loads on a regular basis, it seems possible that you could be at higher risk than somebody who isn't even if you have higher antibody titers.

nradov 5y ago

There is more to immunity than antibody tests. Antibody levels typically drop after a while, but memory cells remain active.

Zigurd 5y ago

Even if there is a good answer to "How do we measure it?" it might cost more to know than it does to administer a third shot. There remains an argument (or a "rebuke," as the article puts it) that first world countries that are well placed to administer booster shots to the fully vaccinated should instead contribute to faster vaccination worldwide, even on a self-interested basis in order to reduce the cases where new variants can emerge. But that is a tenuous argument. A simple first question unanswered in the article is: How much of the unvaccinated population lives where vaccines requiring ULT freezers can be distributed? It may be that every place well equipped to use those kinds of vaccines will do best to get their total vaccination rate as high as possible and administer booster shots to reduce breakthrough infections, so normal activity can resume. Supply chain disruption is not a trivial problem. Having safe workplaces is not a luxury.