9 ms·
> Getting a serum test rather than getting the vaccine is not going to be cheaper, easier, or better studied. The difference is that the serum test is risk fre
by thebean11 5y ago
> Getting a serum test rather than getting the vaccine is not going to be cheaper, easier, or better studied.
The difference is that the serum test is risk free. If I knew I was already immune, I would not have gotten the vaccine to be completely honest, no matter how small the risk is. For the same reason I don't get other safe and effective treatments for diseases I do not have.
- wpietri 5y agoThe effects of the test, sure, because that's just a blood draw. The downstream impact to disease and transmission risk, definitely not.
- djrogers 5y ago> The downstream impact to disease and transmission risk, definitely not. In what way?
- wpietri 5y agoIt will definitely not be better studied because it the focus and the funding is on how well vaccination works. Vaccines have a revenue model; natural immunity doesn't.
- thebean11 5y agoNot sure what you mean, if the test determines I have immunity similar to what a vaccine provides and knowing that I choose not to get it, what are the downstream impacts?
- throwaway894345 5y agoI think the parent is saying "we don't know that natural immunity affords the same protection as vaccination", but I believe he's mistaken.
- thebean11 5y agoI see, I guess I don't know either way, seems like something that isn't particularly difficult to study though so I'd be surprised if it wasn't known at this point.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI'm sure it's quite difficult to study, but no less so than studying the vaccine. I'd be surprised if we didn't already know at least as much about natural immunity, but whether the media are effectively communicating that information is another question.
- throwaway894345 5y agoIsn't the science showing that we do know the downstream impact to disease and transmission risk is preferable in the case of natural immunity?