My heuristic for this at this point (without going into the evidence I’m using): Natural infection counts as something like +2 vaccine doses. So if you’re infected but not vaccinated it’s as good or somewhat better than 2-dose mRNA, and if you’re vaccinated plus infected you’re effectively immune.
The issue, as I’ve mentioned, is that a lot of people are wrong about whether they’ve been infected, in both directions, or would claim it if it was helpful, so it’s hard to use it as a criteria officially. On a personal level, yeah, big game.
My employer is being flexible and has agreed to accept proof of past exposure and anti body response. I’m writing up a page or so to explain the protective nature of nature immunity, and I’m asking around places like here to try to get my facts straight.
Requiring anti body testing as an alternative to vaccine passport at least helps restore a little liberty without sacrificing safety.
Antibody testing is not the only method. There is a much more expensive T-cell testing, that can also confirm prior infection. None of the tests are approved by FDA for the purpose of determining natural immunity.
They are emergency authorized for verifying prior infection, though. As far as I can tell, they constitute medical proof of natural immunity in some capacity, but the test itself can’t tell you to what extent that natural immunity is protective.
However, the studies I looked at on natural immunity show it seems to be about 80% effective at preventing infection, median 7 months after infection (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/), so that + an anti-body test to confirm I really had it seems sufficient.
My heuristic for this at this point (without going into the evidence I’m using): Natural infection counts as something like +2 vaccine doses. So if you’re infected but not vaccinated it’s as good or somewhat better than 2-dose mRNA, and if you’re vaccinated plus infected you’re effectively immune.
The issue, as I’ve mentioned, is that a lot of people are wrong about whether they’ve been infected, in both directions, or would claim it if it was helpful, so it’s hard to use it as a criteria officially. On a personal level, yeah, big game.
My employer is being flexible and has agreed to accept proof of past exposure and anti body response. I’m writing up a page or so to explain the protective nature of nature immunity, and I’m asking around places like here to try to get my facts straight.
Requiring anti body testing as an alternative to vaccine passport at least helps restore a little liberty without sacrificing safety.
Antibody testing is not the only method. There is a much more expensive T-cell testing, that can also confirm prior infection. None of the tests are approved by FDA for the purpose of determining natural immunity.
They are emergency authorized for verifying prior infection, though. As far as I can tell, they constitute medical proof of natural immunity in some capacity, but the test itself can’t tell you to what extent that natural immunity is protective.
However, the studies I looked at on natural immunity show it seems to be about 80% effective at preventing infection, median 7 months after infection (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/), so that + an anti-body test to confirm I really had it seems sufficient.
Can you write something up about AstraZeneca’s prophylactic monoclonal antibody shots that they’re working on?