3 ms·

> Others just want to be armed with more information about their medical status That's really all that needs to be said. Rich people, poor people... if you wan

> Others just want to be armed with more information about their medical status That's really all that needs to be said. Rich people, poor people... if you want to know your body's status, you have every right to, without having to justify it. The jury's out on what the numbers mean. But you have the right to do a blood test and get your numbers.

jjeaff 5y ago
They have the right, as long as they aren't being subsidized by the government (and I suspect they are). But they might as well get their mitichlorian count while they are at it. It would mean about as much. Antibody levels will always fade after a vaccine within months and memory t-cells will remain.
- eganist 5y ago
  > They have the right, as long as they aren't being subsidized by the government (and I suspect they are). This is a sound criticism, honestly. If there are social systems designed to provide a specific benefit across an entire population (testing once or twice post-vaccination to see if the vaccine stuck for select immunocompromised people or people in high risk environments) that end up being abused to give a different, nebulous benefit for a select few (testing all the time to have a bead on just one factor of immunity that may or may not show the whole picture), that's not okay. Now if they're paying for it, or if their insurance provider is paying for it (which would amaze me, but alas), then that's up to them and they should have every right.
  - vmception 5y ago
    There was a time when I was getting a PCR* test every 7 days I’m not in healthcare Or working on a movie set, etc I just wanted to know and see a small group of friends every other week, while complying with local orders I’m of the philosophy that money/liquidity isn’t guaranteed, and so for health matters might as well maximize the privilege while it is available At the end of the day some tests were free, some were covered by insurance, some were paid for and not reimbursed, others were I did something similar when I paid for the HPV vaccines out of pocket. Yeah it sucks that I could get hit by a car and all of this is moot, but I also like the additional privileged I can afford which can fortify me against some things (*I dont care about the efficacy or cycle guidelines, thanks)
    - eganist 5y ago
      Yeah, but those are PCR tests, not antibody tests. There's a massive difference between the two, with the former trying to see if you're likely infected and the latter to measure an aspect of immunity. Getting constant PCR testing is useful in that it'll help you reduce your own likelihood of transmitting the virus, which helps everyone.
      - vmception 5y ago
        I’m aware they are different and didn't feel the need to qualify that as I think the point being made is very clear: Pay for data and fortification if you want and can, no matter what anyone else can practically do Compare yourself to yourself, not gen pop
      - fragmede 5y ago
        Knowing that my antibodies have waned, and thus I'm more susceptible to infection is useful information for not getting everyone around me sick as well though. If I blindly go indoors to large events unmasked while believing I'm fully vaccinated, but it turns out my immunity has waned, you could (depending on how you're also behaving/interacting with the world) catch it from me before I'd pop positive PCR test.
        eganist 5y ago
        > Knowing that my antibodies have waned, and thus I'm more susceptible to infection So I guess this is the point I was making with my original comment when I mentioned a "nebulous benefit for a select few ." Here's a good lay primer on immunity. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/waning-immunity-not-crisis-right-now/619965/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/waning-i... Now, if it turns out you're a medical or osteopathic doctor, apologies in advance since I can't verify your qualifications; I'm still holding firm to my position because it's how I was instructed. And if you're not, then the link above will be helpful.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    It's still the early days of this situation though. We don't yet have the full picture of what immunity actually looks like across a significant sample size of the population 12/18/24 months after being fully vaccinated. Giving access to "the poors" to get themselves tested would help us develop a far more complete picture of what immunity looks like, especially as variants develop. If 0.01% of people never develop antibodies, or they wane after 6 months, we'd not know if we limit testing to a select few high net worth individuals vs a much larger sample size. For the MMR vaccine, it's something like 0.02% of people just never develop antibodies. We're all paying for short-sighted, selfish thinking right now. I'm glad I can afford and have the insurance to pay for antibody testing, but I'd be happier if my tax dollars went towards letting more people get that testing, in the name of public health policy.

jjeaff 5y ago

They have the right, as long as they aren't being subsidized by the government (and I suspect they are). But they might as well get their mitichlorian count while they are at it. It would mean about as much. Antibody levels will always fade after a vaccine within months and memory t-cells will remain.

eganist 5y ago
> They have the right, as long as they aren't being subsidized by the government (and I suspect they are). This is a sound criticism, honestly. If there are social systems designed to provide a specific benefit across an entire population (testing once or twice post-vaccination to see if the vaccine stuck for select immunocompromised people or people in high risk environments) that end up being abused to give a different, nebulous benefit for a select few (testing all the time to have a bead on just one factor of immunity that may or may not show the whole picture), that's not okay. Now if they're paying for it, or if their insurance provider is paying for it (which would amaze me, but alas), then that's up to them and they should have every right.
- vmception 5y ago
  There was a time when I was getting a PCR* test every 7 days I’m not in healthcare Or working on a movie set, etc I just wanted to know and see a small group of friends every other week, while complying with local orders I’m of the philosophy that money/liquidity isn’t guaranteed, and so for health matters might as well maximize the privilege while it is available At the end of the day some tests were free, some were covered by insurance, some were paid for and not reimbursed, others were I did something similar when I paid for the HPV vaccines out of pocket. Yeah it sucks that I could get hit by a car and all of this is moot, but I also like the additional privileged I can afford which can fortify me against some things (*I dont care about the efficacy or cycle guidelines, thanks)
  - eganist 5y ago
    Yeah, but those are PCR tests, not antibody tests. There's a massive difference between the two, with the former trying to see if you're likely infected and the latter to measure an aspect of immunity. Getting constant PCR testing is useful in that it'll help you reduce your own likelihood of transmitting the virus, which helps everyone.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I’m aware they are different and didn't feel the need to qualify that as I think the point being made is very clear: Pay for data and fortification if you want and can, no matter what anyone else can practically do Compare yourself to yourself, not gen pop
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Knowing that my antibodies have waned, and thus I'm more susceptible to infection is useful information for not getting everyone around me sick as well though. If I blindly go indoors to large events unmasked while believing I'm fully vaccinated, but it turns out my immunity has waned, you could (depending on how you're also behaving/interacting with the world) catch it from me before I'd pop positive PCR test.
      - eganist 5y ago
        > Knowing that my antibodies have waned, and thus I'm more susceptible to infection So I guess this is the point I was making with my original comment when I mentioned a "nebulous benefit for a select few ." Here's a good lay primer on immunity. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/waning-immunity-not-crisis-right-now/619965/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/waning-i... Now, if it turns out you're a medical or osteopathic doctor, apologies in advance since I can't verify your qualifications; I'm still holding firm to my position because it's how I was instructed. And if you're not, then the link above will be helpful.
- fragmede 5y ago
  It's still the early days of this situation though. We don't yet have the full picture of what immunity actually looks like across a significant sample size of the population 12/18/24 months after being fully vaccinated. Giving access to "the poors" to get themselves tested would help us develop a far more complete picture of what immunity looks like, especially as variants develop. If 0.01% of people never develop antibodies, or they wane after 6 months, we'd not know if we limit testing to a select few high net worth individuals vs a much larger sample size. For the MMR vaccine, it's something like 0.02% of people just never develop antibodies. We're all paying for short-sighted, selfish thinking right now. I'm glad I can afford and have the insurance to pay for antibody testing, but I'd be happier if my tax dollars went towards letting more people get that testing, in the name of public health policy.