Home | Feature | ANYBODY FOR THE ANTIBODY?

ANYBODY FOR THE ANTIBODY?

09/09/2021 08:19:00 BY CHRIS MORGAN

Font size:

There’s light at the end of the tunnel in the third wave and the kids are back to school; all very encouraging.

But something I’ve thought about for quite a while, and haven’t dared to mention, is the issue of COVID-19 antibody testing. It’s because I’m a non-expert. I’ll rephrase that because it’s almost as bad as the expression ‘pre-owned’ cars. But if I say I have no authenticated and appropriately mandated authority to pontificate on the complex medical dimension, I’ll get fired for swallowing the dictionary. So I’ll KISS – Keep It Short and Simple (sorry if I got you worried there). But seriously, the issue of antibody testing for COVID-19 has got a very low profile indeed. You don’t hear about it. Tricky territory?

Ever since the beginning of last year, the world has heard definitive opinions about COVID-19, only to sometimes see what they call in the military – the ‘about turn’. One minute COVID-19 was caused by droplets, then it was simply airborne; next you had to stay indoors, only to learn that it was a lot safer outside; and then it was said wearing face masks was pointless, even unhealthy, only to learn that not wearing them made you potentially lethal in public. One leading medical practitioner even said he would never catch COVID-19 because he wouldn’t let his hands touch his nose. There were not many, but enough credible people, all medical or scientific experts, who expressed confusing and ultimately retractable opinions. Owing to the distractions of adolescence I never qualified as one of those people, so theoretically I can say what I like and not be considered a good or bad influence. But I will be serious, I promise, and not throw careless remarks.

The issues of natural immunity and herd immunity have also experienced opinion changes. Until recently, people were led to believe that protection (strangely called ‘immunity’ which it isn’t) from a serious case of COVID-19 was created from either vaccine-induced immunity or natural immunity; one as good as the other. Natural immunity is achieved when your system has fought the virus and succeeded; even when you might have been asymptomatic. And it set up an immune system that can tackle future doses of COVID-19 without your getting seriously ill. That’s a very nice ‘get out of jail card’ for possibly a long time.

Material

Vaccine-induced immunity involves your immune system dealing with a non-threatening dose of material injected into the body, thus creating immunity. What has never been disputed is that both forms of immunity are as acceptable as the other; immunity is immunity. The global goal should, therefore, not be viewed as ‘having been vaccinated’, but as ‘having immunity’. And all immunity contributes to the build-up of herd immunity which is where a certain percentage of the population has immunity and the virus fades.

So where are we in terms of that percentage, and how do we find out? The answer to the first question is – we don’t know; sorry about that. Though it could have risen to as much as 90 per cent after the arrival of the Delta variant. And the answer to the second question of how do we find out; you find out from the antibody test. There was originally no doubt about the validity of that test. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States once said: “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.” Then recently they backed off with reservations that did not appear to be entirely plausible. Let’s have a government statement on antibody testing, please, so we know precisely where we stand.

Failure

Identifying natural immunity is important for other reasons too. In some countries, where failure to get vaccinated can lead to exclusion in education, employment and travel, there can be people who have the natural immunity. Even if that wasn’t their motive for not vaccinating they should be entitled to clearance for having the good fortune of natural immunity. Furthermore, a country could be close to, or even at, herd immunity while its leadership is convinced that the tiny vaccination rate means a huge proportion of the population is still at serious risk. The lives and occupations could be unnecessarily jeopardised. Excessive fear can prevail unnecessarily among people. It leaves the question – why does it appear that there is so little faith in a programme of extensive antibody testing? Is it no longer trusted as a measure of natural immunity? Do those in influential positions feel that by promoting the value of natural immunity they are discouraging people from getting vaccinated, the latter being the more controllable way of obtaining immunity? Or have they forgotten about antibody testing? Let’s hear from government please.