4 ms·

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 ea

by 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.

by faster 5y ago

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.