4 ms·

Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of jus

by p49k 5y ago

Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of just proving they have antibodies. This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.

faster 5y ago
What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination. Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
- sequel_database 5y ago
  No it's not easier because my employees will quit
- protomyth 5y ago
  So if it costs a company the same, then workers can take medicine they don't need that has a risk to save someone a buck? How about we stick with science instead of profits?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  You can test for "antibodies". But the question of "is this patient immune from Covid-19" is a lot harder to answer and especially to standardize. There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize. Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.
  - labawi 5y ago
    > potential for uncertainty is too great Too great for what? Even with 2 jabs, the immunity is <90% against Delta and research shows post-covid immunity is more effective.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      You are overestimating the "research shows" part, and no research shows that "natural immunity" is achieving a higher than 90% immunity against any infection. Nor is it clear who actually has a "more effective" or even "sufficiently effective" immunity, given that the infection could be up to a year or more ago, and almost nobody knows exactly what strain they got. And no, you can't tell any of that easily, reliably or cheaply by antibody testing. Proof of vaccination is the cheapest and most reliable proof of a reasonable chance of immunity.
ajkdhcb2 5y ago
How do you define antivax? Pretty sure you would be defined as an antivaxxer by most people as a result of your opinion that some people don't need to get vaccines
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  It's not about whether the individual "needs" the vaccines, but rather about rules a society can live by. And those who argue the most don't really argue about "they don't need the vaccine", but rather assume the vaccine is much bigger risk or damage than is at all reasonable. And that, yes, puts you very close to the "anti-vaxx" bubble.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- labawi 5y ago
  So, if you have post-infection immunity against virus that you can prove (test blood reactivity against virus protein), and it's likely better than typical 2 doses (research shows), you should still be legally required to take 2 jabs even though there are often side effects, even serious ones? Not OP, but if arguing against it is anti-vaxx, then I guess you should call me anti-vaxx and I'll call you unreasonable.
- protomyth 5y ago
  That's a really bad way to define ant-vax since that would encompass a lot of people following accepted practices with the measles vaccine along with some others. Anti-vaxers hate all vaccines. Most of this thread is about following actual science and practices used for other vaccines. If you've had it, then don't get the vaccine, otherwise get the vaccine.
  - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
    I agree with you, but society has recently decided to label anyone with these beliefs as an anti-vaxxer, so we'll have to get used to the new terminology
Nasrudith 5y ago
People seem to have completely forgotten the difference between circulating antibodies and immune cells. If somebody had Covid-19 a while ago and didn't have exposure to it they may still have immune cells but no circulating antibodies.

by p49k 5y ago

faster 5y ago

What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination. Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...

sequel_database 5y ago
No it's not easier because my employees will quit
protomyth 5y ago
So if it costs a company the same, then workers can take medicine they don't need that has a risk to save someone a buck? How about we stick with science instead of profits?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bayesian_horse 5y ago
You can test for "antibodies". But the question of "is this patient immune from Covid-19" is a lot harder to answer and especially to standardize. There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize. Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.
- labawi 5y ago
  > potential for uncertainty is too great Too great for what? Even with 2 jabs, the immunity is <90% against Delta and research shows post-covid immunity is more effective.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    You are overestimating the "research shows" part, and no research shows that "natural immunity" is achieving a higher than 90% immunity against any infection. Nor is it clear who actually has a "more effective" or even "sufficiently effective" immunity, given that the infection could be up to a year or more ago, and almost nobody knows exactly what strain they got. And no, you can't tell any of that easily, reliably or cheaply by antibody testing. Proof of vaccination is the cheapest and most reliable proof of a reasonable chance of immunity.

ajkdhcb2 5y ago

How do you define antivax? Pretty sure you would be defined as an antivaxxer by most people as a result of your opinion that some people don't need to get vaccines

bayesian_horse 5y ago
It's not about whether the individual "needs" the vaccines, but rather about rules a society can live by. And those who argue the most don't really argue about "they don't need the vaccine", but rather assume the vaccine is much bigger risk or damage than is at all reasonable. And that, yes, puts you very close to the "anti-vaxx" bubble.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
labawi 5y ago
So, if you have post-infection immunity against virus that you can prove (test blood reactivity against virus protein), and it's likely better than typical 2 doses (research shows), you should still be legally required to take 2 jabs even though there are often side effects, even serious ones? Not OP, but if arguing against it is anti-vaxx, then I guess you should call me anti-vaxx and I'll call you unreasonable.
protomyth 5y ago
That's a really bad way to define ant-vax since that would encompass a lot of people following accepted practices with the measles vaccine along with some others. Anti-vaxers hate all vaccines. Most of this thread is about following actual science and practices used for other vaccines. If you've had it, then don't get the vaccine, otherwise get the vaccine.
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  I agree with you, but society has recently decided to label anyone with these beliefs as an anti-vaxxer, so we'll have to get used to the new terminology

Nasrudith 5y ago

People seem to have completely forgotten the difference between circulating antibodies and immune cells. If somebody had Covid-19 a while ago and didn't have exposure to it they may still have immune cells but no circulating antibodies.