Read on Twitter
Two critical sentences from a critical JAMA Currents article by Dr. David Hains and colleagues (including @florian_krammer):
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2766215
/a short thread on 'shield immunity'
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2766215
/a short thread on 'shield immunity'
1. The prevalence of subclinical seroconversion in
the health care workers suggests that more health care workers may be antibody-positive than would otherwise be expected.
the health care workers suggests that more health care workers may be antibody-positive than would otherwise be expected.
2. Information on seroprevalence can allow strategically staffing the care of SARS-CoV-2–positive or patients
suspected to be positive with seroconverted nurses and physicians.
suspected to be positive with seroconverted nurses and physicians.
In late March I released a thread on a model and analysis of shield immunity: https://twitter.com/joshuasweitz/status/1245071163744645121?s=20
The key premise was that strategic deployment of recovered individuals (w/presumed protective antibodies) could form the basis for interaction substitution, i.e., thereby reducing the potential for transmission in the collective interests.
Our @NatureMedicine article provides modeling evidence that shield immunity strategies could be used - going above and beyond having individuals return to work, but enhancing interactions relative to those who remain susceptible: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0895-3/
Instead analytical reliability of tests (see joint work w/Alicia Kraay, @kbratnelson, @stillNotDoctor and @B_Lopman) suggest that dual benefits are in reach if we leverage serological testing for the public good: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078576v1
Questions remain on protection, heterogeneity, and duration of protection, but we need to prepare to leverage studies to take action given the potential benefits and ongoing risk.
/end of thread
/end of thread
