[dabigv13]

Been saying for weeks this is what's gonna happen, at least in places that have the capability. The "Survivors" (feel like there is a better name, keep thinking of that episode of Curb, but I can't figure it) get a special pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world...e=Homepage

My reaction is basically this paragraph:

That debate is in some ways ahead of the science. Researchers are uncertain, if hopeful, that antibodies in fact indicate immunity. But that has not stopped politicians from grasping at the idea as they come under increasing pressure to open economies and avoid inducing a widespread economic depression.

I guess it makes sense to plan ahead of time, but we don't know if antibodies actually grant immunity yet, and as someone pointed out via some twitter thread somewhere, even in relatively heavy-hit countries you need a damn good test to actually have confidence that the result is true (with incidence low enough you'll get more false positives than true positives even with >90% sensitivity).

If this virus behaves like almost all other viruses, antibodies will grant immunity, for an unsure duration of time but probably at least a good several months and likely a year or longer, with second exposures being much less severe once the immune system knows how to make the antibodies. I feel pretty comfortable with that assumption. 

A good serology test is required, true. I suspect we will be able to get a pretty decent test though considering how many different research groups around the world are working on this. Similar tests we can get spec and sens at 98 or 99%, so it's certainly feasible.

I think the logistics and the optics could sink it here in the US, but smaller areas or ones with less regard for liberty issues will likely pursue it.

[dabigv13]

Been saying for weeks this is what's gonna happen, at least in places that have the capability. The "Survivors" (feel like there is a better name, keep thinking of that episode of Curb, but I can't figure it) get a special pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world...e=Homepage

My reaction is basically this paragraph:

That debate is in some ways ahead of the science. Researchers are uncertain, if hopeful, that antibodies in fact indicate immunity. But that has not stopped politicians from grasping at the idea as they come under increasing pressure to open economies and avoid inducing a widespread economic depression.

I guess it makes sense to plan ahead of time, but we don't know if antibodies actually grant immunity yet, and as someone pointed out via some twitter thread somewhere, even in relatively heavy-hit countries you need a damn good test to actually have confidence that the result is true (with incidence low enough you'll get more false positives than true positives even with >90% sensitivity).

If this virus behaves like almost all other viruses, antibodies will grant immunity, for an unsure duration of time but probably at least a good several months and likely a year or longer, with second exposures being much less severe once the immune system knows how to make the antibodies. I feel pretty comfortable with that assumption. 

A good serology test is required, true. I suspect we will be able to get a pretty decent test though considering how many different research groups around the world are working on this. Similar tests we can get spec and sens at 98 or 99%, so it's certainly feasible.

I think the logistics and the optics could sink it here in the US, but smaller areas or ones with less regard for liberty issues will likely pursue it.