Surely this is a way out of the testing madness?

[LadyofTheManners]

So, I've been thinking about this whole ridiculous situation, afterall there's not much else in the news or when you chat to friends.

Since the DCs going back to school all at once (don't even get me started on that one), it seems many are being sent home for suspected Covid. The same is true of workers, being told to go and not come back without a negative test.

I guess we should be thankful people are taking this seriously of course.

I can't be the only one who strongly suspects they had the virus prior to the government taking it seriously? I also know of a good friend who paid for an antibody test which came back as being positive for antibodies (he's in a customer facing role so wanted to protect his customers and staff). However, despite paying £100 for this test, when he was due an op last month which was cancelled 4 times, every time it looked to be going ahead he had to have a covid test. So that's 4 tests he didn't need, as the NHS doesn't recognise private tests

Surely, the better option is to pause all nonessential testing, say stay home for 2 weeks, as that's what most will have to do anyway, and get cracking with the antibody tests. That way, you can create a national register, of people with antibodies who not only wouldn't need more pointless tests but who could be asked to take part in testing to see how long these antibodies last dependent on their gender or race or health.

It would stop kids being sent home for huge swathes as they could carry on. Teachers and workers too.

It's going to cost so much more this testing fiasco so this to me works to take the pressure off everyone.

Because they think only 10% of the country have actually had the virus.

So for everyone else who hasnt had it - under your plan - they can get a test but instead are supposed to stay at home for two weeks whenever they have a cough or fever, even if its just caused by a cold? Imagine the national chaos that would cause!

I do definitely agree that they should recognise the antibodies test results though, as that would reduce pressure on testing from those with antibodies already.

that should say:

So for everyone else who hasnt had it - under your plan - they CANT get a test

There have been cases of repeated infection. Just because you've had it once it doesn't guarantee immunity.

But I can’t afford to stay at home for 2 weeks everytime my child gets a cold that inevitably has a cough with it. I’d barely be in work. I’d lose my job & subsequently my home. Your idea only works if you know for sure you are isolating because of Corona. But no-one does. It’s 3 weeks into Autumn & we’ve had hellish colds. Not corona.

@Juststopswimming

that should say:

So for everyone else who hasnt had it - under your plan - they CANT get a test

But if you haven't noticed, people struggle to get a test anyway, and most don't realise that after 4 days there is no point actually having a test at all, yet people are still being told by schools and workplaces not to come back without a negative test, one School in my area of Berkshire has said that two weeks isolation isn't enough and no child sent home will be readmitted without a negative test.

And whether the government believe 10% of us have had it, doesn't make it so. Just recently, it was revealed an elderly gent had past away after being unwell in January, he has since been confirmed as a covid death, yet his date of death is supposedly the day before the first official death in China, so I do think it was here longer than suggested.
I think Italy found it in sewage from November, and California from even further back.

I'm not suggesting those who have an antibody test should ignore the safety aspect whilst they await the results, of course not! But I have seen many on here questioning whether they had it and many in other places. We would know once and for all how prevalent it had been.

@MaidenMotherCrone

There have been cases of repeated infection. Just because you've had it once it doesn't guarantee immunity.

There have been very few, official figures are 5, only one from the UK. That's an even bigger reason to carry these out and keep a register. We don't know what factors effect immunity, how long it lasts etc, we could make some advances in knowledge with that availability of people to test.

@Bol87

But I can’t afford to stay at home for 2 weeks everytime my child gets a cold that inevitably has a cough with it. I’d barely be in work. I’d lose my job & subsequently my home. Your idea only works if you know for sure you are isolating because of Corona. But no-one does. It’s 3 weeks into Autumn & we’ve had hellish colds. Not corona.

No you've missed what I meant. I'm not suggesting those currently waiting for a positive or negative test should be dated for antibodies instead, but sadly it's monumentally difficult for anyone to access a test currently due to shortages. It's been suggested today that the government will soon tell parents, children and teachers that they don't qualify for a test and to isolate instead, that's such a ridiculous thing to do and puts people at risk of job loss as it seems some schools hear a cleared throat and immediately over react.

Making everyone stay at home for two weeks regardless of the cause every time a child spikes a temp or a cough? I appreciate that is what you're 'supposed' to do under the current guidelines, but people already arent and wont do that. If we dont test we have no idea of how much of the virus is circulating, whether national or local approaches need stricter measures - it'd be back to where we were in March, fighting an invisible virus and having no sense at all of where its most prevalent.

We plainly need more tests not no tests!

Except it might be possible to get it a second time (or more). We aren't far enough into this yet to fully understand everything, such as repeated infections, how long it remains in the body, how effective antibody tests are. There are still many unknowns so theories like this cannot work yet, if at all.

Possibly also because there is a question mark over the reliability of the antibody tests. I know people who have had COVID, had a positive COVID test, then subsequently had a negative antibody test. (I'm NHS so we have mostly all had antibody tests)

There have been more than five cases of reinfection - Catalonia alone had four confirmed cases, one of which is in the ICU. We catch the other coronaviruses every 6-18 months on average, this one is looking to be no different. One of the confirmed cases had only 48 days between infections.

You'd essentially have two tiers of people - people with antibodies, who can just carry on with their lives if they get ill, and people without, who would have to self-isolate for two weeks for every mild cough. There are plenty of young, healthy people who would realise that they had a miniscule change of being seriously ill with Covid AND that if they had it they get to lead a normal life again under your plan - how motivated do you think they'd be to avoid getting it?

@Juststopswimming

Making everyone stay at home for two weeks regardless of the cause every time a child spikes a temp or a cough? I appreciate that is what you're 'supposed' to do under the current guidelines, but people already arent and wont do that. If we dont test we have no idea of how much of the virus is circulating, whether national or local approaches need stricter measures - it'd be back to where we were in March, fighting an invisible virus and having no sense at all of where its most prevalent.

We plainly need more tests not no tests!

Again, please read what I've written I've not suggested no more tests but they are being misused and now the government have said certain people will no longer be offered a test at all (specifically children, parents a d teachers). No, my suggestion is to test those who have had a positive test but months back, or suspect they had Covid 19 prior to mass testing, which can be people from even March. We remember don't we when the government kept promising 100,000 tests in April and failed miserably at that so no doubt there were people who didn't get a test and now have no idea if they did or didn't have the virus. Certainly, my male, aged 52, no underlying serious health issues and not overweight friend was incredibly ill in late December, he had he antibody test in late July and sure enough, yes antibodies were present. So in his case, he can cross match when he was ill with unidentified covid 19 symptoms and suggest he still had antibodies 7 months on. That's a great source of info. They are going to pause testing, which will specifically effect MN users the most. So why not offer the antibody test from 60 days after a positive test or no test at all?

@Hardbackwriter

You'd essentially have two tiers of people - people with antibodies, who can just carry on with their lives if they get ill, and people without, who would have to self-isolate for two weeks for every mild cough. There are plenty of young, healthy people who would realise that they had a miniscule change of being seriously ill with Covid AND that if they had it they get to lead a normal life again under your plan - how motivated do you think they'd be to avoid getting it?

But I'm not suggesting people take risks at all. What we do know is we have only a basic knowledge of how this illness works. And knowledge is key. Elsewise, the vaccine, how will that be the great hope everyone is lauding it as in the press when actually, it could need to be tweaked every year like the flu jab? If we don't know who does and doesn't become immune, we can't form a pattern and work out why/if there is a link to reinfection too. Because currently, the reinfection rate is tint compared to the millions of people worldwide who we know have had the virus

Or we could do like Germany and Italy, and only be given a test if passed through by a GP. Despite the narrative, too many schools, business, and people in general are testing with insufficient grounds. We will never be able to test everyone, all the time, no country in the world has the capacity to do this, why on earth should we?

1. the confirmed reinfection rate is tiny but then so is the number of people who've been tested for reinfection. It's not just a case of two positive tests a long time apart or with a negative test in between - the confirmed cases have had genetic and phylogenetic analysis to prove they're new infections. To do that you need a sample or viral sequence from the original infection. That's a huge hurdle given that most people who've had it were never so much as tested.

2. the fact that we're seeing any reinfections this early in the pandemic is deeply worrying as it indicates that we're likely to be susceptible to catching covid every 6-18 months (but possibly more frequently as one reinfection case was only 48 days after the initial infection) as with the endemic coronaviruses rather than the (theoretical) longer lasting immunity to SARS and MERS.

Not everyone produces antibodies and antibodies don't last. Therefore it seems to me antibody tests are of little use.

There also seem to be a fewcases of people being reinfected but have not read of any cases where they have been seriously ill the second time.

@chocolatviennois

Not everyone produces antibodies and antibodies don't last. Therefore it seems to me antibody tests are of little use.

There also seem to be a fewcases of people being reinfected but have not read of any cases where they have been seriously ill the second time.

Out of the 11 confirmed cases I've read about one is in the ICU and another is in the hospital after having mild illnesses the first time.

We also have to remember, as it has been admitted, that tests earlier on may have produced false positives as well as false negatives.
Im not suggesting that some aren't being reinfected but we need to know why that is and why some do and some dont, is it a time thing, a health thing, is there a link?
I'm quite a scientific person, I prefer numbers and research rather than scare tactics of the media and the government as I find it less upsetting to look at it that way.
But yes, the more we know the better position we will be in, on testing, on cure, on what medications can lessen the symptoms and effects and whether a vaccine will work or need to be updated yearly.

There are reasons “immunity passports” were canned as an idea.

Under your plan if my children and my husband and I have antibodies we would no longer have to self isolate if we got Covid symptoms, colds, coughs etc? Because if so given we are all very low risk (and yes, even knowing about long covid, reinfection etc) I might be tempted to deliberately try and catch it to just get it over and done with and minimise disruption to my children’s schooling. I’m not sure that’s really what government wants to incentivise people to do....

I agree that we need to find out what the antibody's life cycle is (if there is one) as part of normal research. If a lot of people who have tested positive are keeping antibodies for a long period of time, that gives a lot of information to the health authorities.

But, as @Triangularbubble said, there needs to be a lot of care around that. There could be people who think, right let's have the coronavirus equivalent of chickenpox parties. But we know chickenpox can cause severe problems for some children (and is particularly nasty as you get older). So you don't want to encourage 'coronavirus parties' with young people (who aren't as badly impacted by Covid most of the time) deliberately trying to get the disease, then inadvertently passing it onto vulnerable or older people. Or being one of the few who become seriously ill themselves.

We still need to know who has picked up coronavirus, even if it's just to monitor them for immediate or long term health problems, ensure they don't mix with others for a couple of weeks, protect the people around them who are vulnerable. So we still need to test.

Telling everyone who has a temperature or a cough, plus their families and any close contacts, to isolate for a fortnight 'just in case it's covid' merely does two things.

Firstly it brings the economy to its knees. If there's no test it would mean a bubble at school (my son is in one of 400 children!) has to isolate for 14 days 'just in case'. That means 400 parents have to find some way of looking after their child for 14 days. Some employers would stop employing working parents eventually as they don't want to have to cover for a fortnight off for every sniffle their child gets.

A woman on a Facebook group I belong to mentioned that her DD was sent home from school last Wednesday with a chesty cough. The woman, a single mum, said it was chesty, a cold, not a Covid cough. But the school insisted on a test (that's another story). Now she was one of many who couldn't get an immediate test. It took until Saturday to get one done. But, on Monday, the test came back negative so her kids are back at school, she's back at work - 5 days later. If she'd have had to wait the fortnight, she and her children would have had to isolate for another week and a half. And she has four kids so the chances of this happening again are pretty high. She'd have no job by Christmas if she had to take two weeks off every time with no test.

And just staying in isolation with no test doesn't give an accurate measure of what covid 19 is doing in the community. To say any preventative measures are adequate, or a vaccine is working, or masks are/are not achieving anything, you need to have statistics. If I'm home for 14 days with suspected covid, it's not recorded. If I have a positive test it is recorded.

Personally I can't understand why people can still get private covid tests at £120 plus per test. If that laboratory facility is available the government should be getting access to it for the NHS. We, as a nation, named and shamed those people who were selling sanitising liquid for triple the price or more at the start of this. I think private testing labs are akin to this now. Time to start insisting those laboratories that can handle the test, do so for everyone, not just those who can afford it. They need to step up to the mark now.

@LadyofTheManners

We also have to remember, as it has been admitted, that tests earlier on may have produced false positives as well as false negatives. Im not suggesting that some aren't being reinfected but we need to know why that is and why some do and some dont, is it a time thing, a health thing, is there a link? I'm quite a scientific person, I prefer numbers and research rather than scare tactics of the media and the government as I find it less upsetting to look at it that way. But yes, the more we know the better position we will be in, on testing, on cure, on what medications can lessen the symptoms and effects and whether a vaccine will work or need to be updated yearly.

People who simply have had two positive tests separated by a long time or a negative test aren't being counted as confirmed reinfections. The recently reported cases sequenced the viral genome from the original and new infection and showed that they were two phylogenetically distinct viruses.

No I think the government needs to give better advice about when you need to be tested. My daughters classes are down to
50% attendance already because people are taking a slight cough as a green light they need to be tested. It’s not it’s a continuous cough - appreciate this is not black and white but it is also not a Child coughing once or twice.