Porton Down

[Kaz]

Have announced this lunchtime that they have just advisied the government of the successful development of a 100% accurate Covid-19 antibody test! Short of a vaccine this is the best news for ages!

[TheOstrich]

Yes indeed , as announced on the BBC, but being the BBC, they had to add a "BUT". "BUT it is not clear whether having the antibodies does provide immunity".

They really are the pits, the BBC. They cannot broadcast any semblance of good news without adding a BUT. This has become most noticeable as the virus has peaked and then started a gentle decline.
I shall herewith rename them, from the "Biased Broadcasting Corporation" to the "But But Corporation"

(Mrs O thinks I'm paranoid, BUT that's not entirely correct … )

[Workingman]

It is good news, really good news.

Unfortunately the "but", as reported not only by the BBC but also Sky, ITN and so on, is true. Professor John Newton, national coordinator of the UK Coronavirus Testing Programme, gave the warning that "the extent to which the presence of antibodies indicates immunity remains unclear."

The issue of immunity, post infection, has been doing the rounds for weeks and there is still no definitive answer. Having said that I am determined to stay in the 'cup half full' group.

[Gal2]

I shall herewith rename them, from the "Biased Broadcasting Corporation" to the "But But Corporation"

[cromwell]

Yes indeed , as announced on the BBC, but being the BBC, they had to add a "BUT".
They really are the pits, the BBC.

They are that.
If Boris Johnson brought people back to life tomorrow, the BBC's headline would be "Johnson implicated in grave robbing scandal".
The media have behaved awfully in this crisis.

[Suff]

WM, in terms of immunity being 100 and no immunity being 0, it is correct that the presence of antibodies does not necessarily mean immunity.

The fact that there have now been 4.5 million reported cases and 1.4 million recoveries, with 0 instances of reinfection (now that the 95 SK cases have been found to have been a testing error), means that antibodies are somewhere in the top half of 90% certain that it grants immunity.

In that case a 100% certain antibody test is of incredible value and can be used to escape the lock down and get the country moving.

If they want to add a But, they need to quantify the size of the BUT. Something they are unwilling to do.

Of course if the country is able to relegate Covid-19 to a persistent, but manageable, problem, the news value will drop and the press and media have been having a free ride for far too long.

[Workingman]

Nobody is arguing that a 100% antibody test is not a good thing, all that is being reported is the research from Porton Down on Roche's test and its figures. Had the virus = 100% accurate, not had the virus 99.8% accurate = two in 1,000 people would be incorrectly told they had previously caught the coronavirus ~135.000 of us if everyone gets tested, which will not happen.

The fact that there have now been 4.5 million reported cases and 1.4 million recoveries, with 0 instances of reinfection (now that the 95 SK cases have been found to have been a testing error), means that antibodies are somewhere in the top half of 90% certain that it grants immunity.

OK, I'll pass that on to Professor John Newton, national coordinator of the UK Coronavirus Testing Programme as he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. After all it was his "but" that was being reported, not one made up by the BBC or the rest of the media.

This is his quote from Sky, exactly the same as the BBC: "This is a very positive development because such a highly specific antibody test is a very reliable marker of past infection. This in turn may indicate some immunity to future infection although the extent to which the presence of antibodies indicates immunity remains unclear."

There isn't a scientist on the planet working on this who will put their hand up and say for definite that if you have had it you will not get it again. There are strong indications against reinfection, but no 100% proof - not yet. It is, therefore, wise to be cautious as the test in itself says nothing about immunity. There is a lot more work to do on that aspect of the virus' cycle.

[Suff]

The fact that there have now been 4.5 million reported cases and 1.4 million recoveries, with 0 instances of reinfection (now that the 95 SK cases have been found to have been a testing error), means that antibodies are somewhere in the top half of 90% certain that it grants immunity.

OK, I'll pass that on to Professor John Newton, national coordinator of the UK Coronavirus Testing Programme as he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. After all it was his "but" that was being reported, not one made up by the BBC or the rest of the media.

This is where politics meets reality. National coordinators are not just scientists or doctors or even the man in the street. They are political.

The statement is correct. Whether it is fit for purpose, in terms of using this test to open the country safely is the point I am getting at. It is fit for purpose for protecting the career and reputation of one Professor John Newton, without a doubt. Whether it is a reasonable statement when the country is opening up and people are dying. Not just people with the virus but people with cancer and a whole host of other ailments who are either being deferred treatment or are avoiding hospital themselves, is an entirely different question.

There are cases where H1N1 antibodies did not fight off reinfection. But these are Specific cases where the body had not developed the required level of immunity and were constantly in contact with the virus. You can see the documentation here.

However it is important to note that this is a _very_ specific response where some people require 3-4 weeks before their body produces the correct immune response to the initial infection and that reinfection happened within that timeline.

Taking a simple precaution could resolve that easily.

But, no, just throw out the "we don't know if you will be immune" response and everyone is covered. Ass all tefloned, job done.

Not impressing me much. With 1.5 million recovered and very high levels of infection in areas where the recovered and _not_ _one_ _single_ confirmed case of reinfection, we can be pretty sure that reinfection will be rare.

But lets go with Teflon, please do. The country is opening up again. We should be using every single tool at our disposal to make that safer.

[Workingman]

Let me try this again.

There isn't a scientist on the planet working on this who will put their hand up and say for definite that if you have had it you will not get it again.

Use any search engine and ask it: "If I get Covid-19 will I be immune?" or "Can I get Covid-19 again?" and all you will get from serious scientists is "We don't know". It is only the wackos, conspiracy theorists and 'expert' deniers who will give their 100% guarantees otherwise. That's the reality. I'll go with the scientists.

An antibody test tells us who has had the virus, but it in no way guarantees immunity. On its own it is very important as it tells us how many, and who, was infected and survived - it is a look back. An antigen test tells us who has the virus and might be fighting it or passing it on. - it is in the now. Together they work well; individually they are like two women sharing a bikini, one has the top, the other the bottom.

[Suff]

Generally we're looking for a broad brush test which tells us who has had the virus and is, potentially, capable of fighting off a second infection. Therefore can be able to go back to work and circulate with others, without being a risk of transmitting the virus further; given that certain simple rules of hygiene are followed.

There are cases of re-infection. In the article I posted, three. Every one of them was within four weeks of infection, when the body had not built up enough resistance and the patient was being bombarded by the virus constantly.

As far as I can find there are NO other cases where a H1N1 variant virus (of which Covid-19 is one), has re-infected a recovered person after that 4 week period.

So if we change the question, we will get a different answer. If we ask those same medical professionals:

"If someone tested 100% positive with antibodies for Covid-19 and that person has had no detectable virus for more than four weeks, would the chance of re-infection be less than 5%?"

The answer to that question would be a resounding YES. No problem there, if someone is re-infected they fall into the ~5% bracket and the observed results of re-infected people fall into the correct bracket of 4 weeks.

As I said, this is a political answer. Because if we get that "Yes" answer, the lockdown could end, completely, 4 weeks after anyone is tested and proves positive for antibodies.

However if we continue with this equivocal "well it's not 100% certain", then we'll never do anything. So change the damned question, give the scientists a reason to say Yes then just bloody well get on with it.

Sorry but I'm tired of people who will only give the easiest answer which gives them an out when things, very predictably, don't go 100% as expected. If you give the out and the rules are followed, then the 5% give them enough leeway to accept re-infected cases. But it gives governments and the people the ability to move on.

You might note that the press is, unhelpfully, banging on about antibody tests now. Quietly ignoring the fact that UK testing for the virus has exceeded France, is rapidly catching Spain and Italy and will exceed them in 1-2 weeks. In 3 weeks it is likely that UK testing will exceed Germany too.

But we can't be allowed to know that can we. We might not be afraid enough and saying Antibody tests are not certain is another fear factor.

So I vote we ask the right question, get the unequivocal "Yes" answer and move on with our lives, economy and country. Oh and if we do that the older and more vulnerable people will get out of lockdown a hell of a lot faster. Now why wouldn't we want that?