Open to suggestions on Covid testing

The contribution by David Segarnick Ph.D in the Dec. 23 Herald triggered an opinion I heard on TV yesterday. I did not record the name of the speaker, but he was a epidemiologist who put forth an idea that struck me as a possible alternative to testing for the presence of the virus in an individual.
This thought was that it was more informative to check for the presence (or absence) of antibodies instead of the presence of a virus. I was tested last week and came up negative, but that information had a very short life span – I could have tested positive very soon after that.
It is my understanding (as a layman) that the antibodies remain in your system for a long period and would therefore be more helpful in determining a person’s situation. Since I am not an epidemiologist I do not know what levels provide safety for you or for those around you.

I also don’t know the practicality for producing testing of this sort. It just struck me as an idea that I had not heard before, but had merit. Comments from those in the field would be welcome.
One added bonus: Perhaps unvaccinated persons depending on “herd immunity” or “natural immunity” would be encouraged to be vaccinated if their antibody counts turned out to be very low.
Toni Kellers, Bedminster

---

Join our readers whose generous donations are making it possible for you to read our news coverage. Help keep local journalism alive and our community strong. Donate today.