AIBU to think immunity passes would be a terrible thing?

[Makeitgoaway]

I know initially any antibody test would be to help NHS workers etc get back to work but if an antibody test became widely available, those who are immune could return to work and play while everyone else stays in. Am I understanding that correctly?

Which would mean the immune had a clear advantage in every aspect of life. And (outside of key workers) they're most likely to be the ones who didn't follow the rules properly!

Pigletjohn

Already there. I work in a care home. We are having to take hospital discharge patients - they won’t always be tested and some are tested 7 days prior to discharge. The test is like a mot- only valid for that day so they could have it and not have symptoms. We don’t have the right ppe or enough of it. I make droplet shields out of laminator sheets and string. We are rationing soap. We are little more than cannon fodder. It’s not if we froths virus it’s when. Dead bodies don’t cough all over you. So it would be an improvement.

I think it is vital. As soon as a person knows they have immunity they can go back to work. Key workers should be tested first. The elderly and vulnerable groups should stay shielded. If they get it they will almost certainly die. Younger people with no other underlying health issues next, then middle aged with no underlying health issues. Eventually there will be a vaccine. At the moment the 17.5 million antibody test kids government have bought are not reliable.

DH is shielded. Having immunity testing would be key to him ever being ever leave the house again!

Everybody talks of immunity, but have I missed some vital piece of evidence that proves that you are immune after catching it?

There was a story today in China? where people tested negative then 9 days later they tested positive.

This virus has us on the hop. We don't know enough about it to be talking about immunity.

Some people are shielding others so are desperately trying not to catch it.

I agree OP that the idea of such passports make me feel deeply uncomfortable as they will be highly divisive.

What if the people who are immune can return to their lives (in as far as that feasible) those not immune are able to claim generous benefits or some other incentive for them to do the right thing?

Evan Davies on PM has mentioned wristbands I think. Seems a bad idea. They’d be the next thing to get mugged for. Want to stay home? Nick one colour. Want a pass to go to the cinema or whatever? Nick another.

Also, surely even if I was personally immune I could still infect others by moving about in society getting the virus on my hands, hair, clothes and depositing it around the place so although I might not be personally vulnerable I could still be a spreader.

if it was on a wristband you probably have to agree to be tracked and there be some sort of a chip in it which could be read by someone who had the right hand held device

(Though I agree an immune person practising excellent hygiene and social distancing would be better placed than a non immune person doing the same things)

You couldn't have some kids doing A levels, going to university and some kids being denied an education. Or some kids learning to read and write and some kids not.

So you think it's OK if one section of the community is allowed to have an education, see family, earn a living whilst others aren't just because of a medical fluke? That seems like a very slippery slope to me. seems like reality for disabled people all over the world. You don’t honestly still think life is fair do you? How old are you that you haven’t noticed that we are all dealt wildly different hands?

People will try and purposefully get sick to get the immunity pass. We'll have a surge in cases, the nhs will be inundated and it will make what we've been currently doing, pointless.

I just read on here earlier, that some expert said that even when you get better after having this virus , it can later reactivate itself.and you could be ill again.

I think it's a poor analogy to compare those without an immunity passport to those who are disabled. Being stuck indoors because you are unwell or have a disability is not the same as being stuck indoors because the government has banned you from leaving your house. Many people going through chemo are told to self-isolate for their own protection but it is not government mandated - you make your own decisions about what kind of risk you want to take for yourself. Also we don't tell disabled children they can't go to school or see their grandparents. It's really not the same.

It's temporary until they either catch it or we get a vaccine. I've had it, (probably) so perhaps I'm bias

So you think it's OK if one section of the community is allowed to have an education, see family, earn a living whilst others aren't just because of a medical fluke?

Re education---the kids of key workers at school are basically getting the same education as the kids at home, in most schools. They are getting online learning at separate desks and homework packs. They are not being educationally privileged. The situation will probably stay like that until everyone is back at school.

Re earning a living: getting the immune back to work and propping the economy while also paying the non-immune to stay at home, is cheaper than letting the whole economy tank. Those who have to stay at home are not going to left to starve, and they too are going to have better life prospects and job prospects once they are out of isolation if the economy is in a better state by then as a result of other people getting out of isolation, working and spending money in the meantime.

also it would encourage lots of people to get CV in order to get one.

Yes, it would. That's unfortunate but there is no way round it. We need to not turn into Venezuela.

One suggestion I have seen mooted is that people who get a immunity certificate could be required to carry out some kind of social service duty. This could alleviate some of the feeling of unfairness.

People might be dissuaded from trying to catch it on purpose if the facts about viral load were well publicized.

If you try and ingest a lot of virus (sharing lollipops with an infected person--pretty much anything that people might try in order to get it), you are much more likely to end up with a dangerously severe case. The mild cases probably tend to result when people get exposed to very small trace amounts of virus, like you would if you were socially distancing, washing hands and trying NOT to catch it. If people understand this clearly, I think it will discourage deliberate "bug chasing".

There would immediately be a black market.

There already is!

The thing is OP you have already told us that you are unfairly privileged as you are able to WFH at presumably full pay, whilst others ie waiters as you keep pointing out are probably on 80% or have lost their jobs.

But hey your alright Jack, so let’s make everyone stay at home even if they have immunity, because you have to.

I think it's a brilliant idea.

I dont get the concerns about unfairness. Surely everything would still be awful if we don't have a system that allows people back to work safely. Esp keyworkers and carers. We need to economy to start working again.

A system that gets increasing numbers of people back to work safely is great.

Catherine how would you stop people purposefully trying to catch it and overwhelmingly the NHS? Which is what we're trying to avoid right now.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/06/what-are-the-uks-options-for-exiting-the-coronavirus-lockdown
Antibody tests and immunity passports
The government has ordered 17.5m antibody home-testing kits, but none have yet proved reliable. Some senior scientists say the tests may pick up only half of those who have had the virus, in part because people with milder infections tend to have lower levels of antibodies in their blood. The poor performance appears to scupper hopes for using the tests soon to issue “immunity passports” so that the immune can return to work – an idea under active consideration in the UK and Germany. Even if accurate tests can be obtained, they may not be the “game-changer” that Johnson has claimed. No one knows whether antibodies in the blood mean full or only partial protection against the virus, nor how long any protection would last, making immunity passports a shaky reassurance.

But while antibody tests might not be that useful for individuals, they could still be extremely valuable for tracking the outbreak and deciding on the best way to exit the lockdown, according to Prof Eleanor Riley, of Edinburgh University. “If antibody testing suggests that, say, 40 or 50% of the population has already been exposed, any relaxing of the social distancing rules is less likely to lead to a second wave of serious infections than if only 1% of the population has been exposed,” she said.