Do You Plan on Testing for COVID Antibodies?

[penguintroopers]

So I work at one of the big healthcare companies and they're now offering free antibody tests to employees. I'm undecided about taking them up on the offer but wanted to hear the thoughts of other mustachians on the topic.

Note: I work in the lab, so my only exposure to COVID would be from coworkers. Its similar exposure risk to an ordinary lab doing other functions since my specific lab is not doing COVID testing.

[mathlete]

I'm unaware of this being available to the public in my area, but I marked yes. I want to help with the massive amount of data collecting that we need to do to navigate the rest of this.

[penguintroopers]

Hey thanks! I hadn't even thought about it from an aggregate good for society basis.

Some companies are now allowing for self-ordered testing in the US. I'll include links to a few for people interested (this is not an exhaustive list, just a few from a short google session):

Labcorp (still need doctor prescription or other telemedicine approval, but I anticipate this will change soon to compete with Quest): https://www.labcorp.com/antibody-testing

Quest: https://questdirect.questdiagnostics.com/products/covid-19-immune-response/b580e541-78a5-48a6-b17b-7bad949dcb57

Abbott: https://www.healthlabs.com/covid-19-antibody-test

ARCPoint: https://www.arcpointlabs.com/covid-19-antibody-testing/

Note: I do not endorse any of theses tests. Please do your due diligence in research before performing and trusting an antibody test result.

[Laserjet3051]

i voted yes for other reasons. The logic being that if i knew had seroconverted, i'd probably cut back on licking doorknobs and toilet seats.

[hops]

My wife now thinks she may have gotten it at work (early in the year, before it had supposedly arrived in our community and before some of the odder symptoms were widely known) and brought it home to me. She doesn't think antibody testing is worth it yet and her hospital hasn't mandated it so far. I'll have it done if my doctors, who don't think it's worthwhile yet, change their minds.

Edited to add: I'm not currently an eligible blood donor, so plasma donation's not a consideration. Our local hospitals are most eager for donations from recovered patients who had positive tests while sick, though some organizations are starting to relax their criteria to include certain approved antibody tests for qualified donors.

[beltim]

Whether someone has antibodies only means that they were presented with the viral antigen.  It does NOT necessarily mean that they're protected against (re)infection!  While the appropriate studies are being pursued, we don't yet know if people produce a protective antibody response.

Now, if they tested for neutralizing antibodies it'd be a lot more relevant.

[JGS1980]

Whether someone has antibodies only means that they were presented with the viral antigen.  It does NOT necessarily mean that they're protected against (re)infection!  While the appropriate studies are being pursued, we don't yet know if people produce a protective antibody response.

Now, if they tested for neutralizing antibodies it'd be a lot more relevant.

ALSO, if the overall incidence of COVID 19 in your area is very low, than it is likely that the current antibody testing that is available will provide too many false positives to be helpful.

For example: If in your local area, the incidence is 2%, but the false positive rate of the test is 5%. Than a positive result for antibody is MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE A FALSE POSITIVE than a true positive.

This could lead to a false sense of safety, leading to actual increases in infection rate because of changes in behavior.

News Media is glossing over this because it's a bit complicated, and either don't get it themselves or think the public can't process the info [they are probably right].

[MudPuppy]

I have been tested as part of a study on exposure in HCW but won’t know the results for possibly years, until the study is unblinded.

[Cranky]

No. I don't have any reason to think that I've been exposed - we have taken STAY HOME very seriously. And the tests just seem super inaccurate.

It wouldn't really change anything for us, though.

Dh's university has looked into testing, and OMG is that expensive.

[Bloop Bloop]

I voted no on the basis that the small amount of effort expended would outweigh the benefit to me.

[penguintroopers]

ALSO, if the overall incidence of COVID 19 in your area is very low, than it is likely that the current antibody testing that is available will provide too many false positives to be helpful.

For example: If in your local area, the incidence is 2%, but the false positive rate of the test is 5%. Than a positive result for antibody is MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE A FALSE POSITIVE than a true positive.

This could lead to a false sense of safety, leading to actual increases in infection rate because of changes in behavior.

News Media is glossing over this because it's a bit complicated, and either don't get it themselves or think the public can't process the info [they are probably right].

I think this is what has me on the fence the most. I'm in a moderately unaffected area that just has proximity to other locations with high infection. We've been very serious on the stay at home order, to the point that my husband hasn't left the house for 8 weeks except for 2 visits to family. In 6 weeks I've made 2 grocery store visits, one curbside store pickup, and those same 2 family visits. So my outcomes are an unsurprising negative, which would mean continuing the same behaviors until I'm recalled from furlough, or a surprising positive which we would probably consider a false positive and then consider shelling out the cash for husbands test to see his result. We assume that infection of one would also be the other.

[Zikoris]

I'd like to. In my area, at the start of this when everyone was getting sick they were only testing people who were hospitalized, and everyone else was just told to stay home and rest. Me and my partner both got really sick with COVID-like symptoms, but have no idea if we actually had it or just the seasonal flu/something else.

[mm1970]

Nobody in my house has been sick, and we've been isolating, so no point getting tested.

[DHMO]

I voted No/Other because I don't plan to seek out the test. I don't think the results would be valuable to me personally, and I don't have the knowledge base to understand what a positive result would mean beyond the broad strokes of "sometime in the past I was exposed (per antibody results) and I didn't become ill that time". I don't think that is going to help me make better decisions right now. I'm still going to focus on minimizing future exposure.
If my doctor recommends it, I have no objections (even just for population study). I don't think my doctor will ask.

[Catbert]

At this point, no.  I'm low risk for getting it (I think) since I'm retired and have taken shelter in place and safety precautions pretty seriously.  I haven't had any flu-like or cold symptoms this year.  The available tests are pretty inaccurate so as JGS outlined a positive test wouldn't really show that I'm "safe".  Finally, to the extent that tests are helpful at all, there are others who need the test more than me.

Now, ask me again in 6 months when tests are better and I'd likely get a test.

[iris lily]

To the OP, what is the downside to being tested? For you I don’t see any downside. Now here I am envisioning little to no effort expended on your part to get a test that somehow it happens in your workplace in an easy to access way.

It costS you nothing. What were the downside be?

[Villanelle]

I won't go out of my way, especially because there is no research (of which I'm aware) that even confirms having antibodies prevents you from getting it again, or if it does, for how long.  So I don't see it as especially actionable or useful information. 

That said, I was pretty sick in mid-Feb.  When to urgent care after momentarily passing out during a coughing spell.  The diagnosed me with Strep, which made no sense to either me or the doctor since I did not have a sore throat, and when she looked at my throat it looked fine and she expressed great surprise.  But the Strep test came back +.  Even at the time I questioned it and wondered if it was a false+.  The Abx they gave me were also supposed to work within about 36 hours, but I saw no improvement for more than a couple days.  That was even more reason for me to think it wasn't strep at the time.  But I recovered. 

I don't know for sure if I ever had a fever.  We learned our thermometer had a dead battery and strangely they never took my temp at urgent care, but I did feel feverish several times. 

So I think there was some small chance I did have it.  For curiosity's sake, I suppose it would be interesting to know, but I'm not going to waste my time or a test on that.

[DadJokes]

No for other reasons.

I have no reason to believe that I've been exposed to covid thus far. I live in a rural area, and the infection rate where I live is very low (0.02% or so). Additionally, no one that I know has contracted it, and no one in our household has been remotely sick.

As of this moment, getting tested for antibodies would probably be a waste of time for me. That could change in the future.

[Clever Name]

I would like to get tested, but I live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest testing site is over an hour away with no appointments available for weeks. I answered undecided because I may still do it if/when it becomes more widely available here, but I'm not giving it too much thought until then.

[FIRE 20/20]

No for other reasons.  I very firmly believe in following science and medical evidence.  Right now, as @JGS1980 said, the statistics on testing mean that for people with a low likelihood of infection probably shouldn't be tested yet.  A positive result could be more likely to be incorrect than correct in those people.  You can see the results of studying the accuracy of the tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance

If and when my doctor thinks I should get tested, I will.  Or, if the guidance is that the government or my health care company want people like me to get tested then I will.  However, given that I have been almost completely isolated for months and haven't shown any symptoms I don't plan to seek out a test.  In my situation, a negative result would be expected, and a positive result would likely be a false positive.  Thus the test, unless followed up with another different test, is likely to yield zero information. 

[Alternatepriorities]

If I see a chance to get tested I will both for my own knowledge and for the sake of the data. Also if I have anti bodies with O- blood I could probably do more good by donating them instead of whole blood. I'm not curious enough to pay a ton of money for the test though and I'd like to have more confidence in test accuracy before paying anything for one. I did see a story from the UK yesterday that suggested we are getting the accuracy part dialed in.

[Dogastrophe]

"Yes, for other reasons."

I was set to have an unrelated test done at hospital the other day. They required me to have a COVID test done before they would do the test. It came back negative. Unrelated test now rescheduled to next week. Was tested for the virus, not antibody. I would do test for antibody

[Dicey]

i think DH and I had it, and we'd like to know for sure. If the possibility of donating plasma to help others exists, we're all for it.

[Dollar Slice]

When a reliable test is widely available to me, I'd like to get one. The only one I've been offered has a disclaimer about false positives, so it seems unhelpful.

I live in NYC and have been sick a couple of times this year; was heavily exposed to someone who was very sick with a bad cough for weeks as well as several other sick friends. (This was back in late February when we didn't know it was circulating in New York, but now we know it was.) I was also in an unusual amount of big crowds in Jan/Feb (music festivals etc.) and on public transit a lot. I'm trying not to fall into the wishful-thinking trap where everyone secretly thinks they definitely had it, but there's a solid chance. A positive antibody test would make me feel safer to, for example, go visit my elderly parents and isolate with them for a while. I'm not sure I can do a plasma donation (last time I checked I was ineligible to donate whole blood) but I would look into that as well.

[GuitarStv]

I'd like to know if I have been exposed mostly out of curiosity.  We don't yet know if being exposed is preventative though, so at this point there's not much that the antibody data would change about my behaviour.

[Kris]

Yes, for other reasons. I'm curious. DH and I both got quite sick in early February, and presented with some pretty weird symptoms. So I wouldn't say I had it, but I wouldn't be super surprised if I did, either.

[Samuel]

For free? Sure. I'm curious if I had a glancing blow from it in February. Didn't really have a fever or cough so I wrote it off but had some other weird things going on that are now thought to be potential symptoms.

I'm not paying for a test, though. Saw a local lab will do it for $119.

[ketchup]

GF and I will probably get antibody tested.  She had most of the symptoms in mid-late February after returning home from a trip to Germany and Belgium that involved her going on lots of public transit (tons of trains in Germany, two packed-to-the-gills flights over the Atlantic).  I got the same symptoms on about a two-day delay.  Definitely the sickest I've ever been as an adult.  Only treated with over the counter drugs (Dayquil/Nyquil and a metric fuckton of cough drops) at home.  Could have just been Influenza A, but who knows.

At the time in my locale, you could only get tested if you were in contact with someone already confirmed, or had just traveled to China.

[penguintroopers]

To the OP, what is the downside to being tested? For you I don’t see any downside. Now here I am envisioning little to no effort expended on your part to get a test that somehow it happens in your workplace in an easy to access way.

It costS you nothing. What were the downside be?

I know its unlikely, but potential exposure during the blood draw.

I also mentioned upstream how I don't think the test would change much for us. A positive result would likely be dismissed as a false positive. A negative result means I would continue with the same preventative behaviors as before. Plus, other people who are more certain of exposure could receive more value in their test results than I would.

[Villanelle]

"Yes, for other reasons."

I was set to have an unrelated test done at hospital the other day. They required me to have a COVID test done before they would do the test. It came back negative. Unrelated test now rescheduled to next week.

Sounds like that was a test for active infection, not anitbodies, no?

[Dogastrophe]

"Yes, for other reasons."

I was set to have an unrelated test done at hospital the other day. They required me to have a COVID test done before they would do the test. It came back negative. Unrelated test now rescheduled to next week.

Sounds like that was a test for active infection, not anitbodies, no?

Ya, I suppose it was. My answer still stands though.  I would/will take an antibody test if avail.

[T-Money$]

I got tested a while back.  It was a big relief to be positive and not have to deal with the anxiety and fear many are currently experiencing.

Perhaps having the anti-bodies will indicate long term immunity is possible:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity

Perhaps as well herd immunity can be established with a low threshold:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20093336v1.full.pdf

[Zoot]

2) We had the "what ever it was" burn through the lab back in February and a lot of people (myself included) where sick with something (e.g., persistent cough) for two weeks.

My "yes" vote is for similar reasons--weird not-a-cold-but-wow-I-feel-crappy-and-everything-hurts illness back in March makes me think I probably had a mild case, and I'm super-curious to know if I'm right.

[flyingaway]

I voted YES, if it is free or if my insurance will cover it.

I am just curious to see if I have the antibodies.

[Gin1984]

"Yes, for other reasons."

I was set to have an unrelated test done at hospital the other day. They required me to have a COVID test done before they would do the test. It came back negative. Unrelated test now rescheduled to next week.

They required you to test for antibodies or PCR?

[skp]

I would only if asked for a study.  I have been exposed (RN caring for covid + pts) but I only work one or two days a week if I'm not called off due to low census (was just called off 2 days in a row. My  facility has been great about PPE and I am asymptomatic.  I have been participating in the Nurse Health Study for years, and if they wanted me to, I would.  But I wouldn't do it "out of curiousity"

[goatmom]

Yes - I work in healthcare at a college and was around many sick international students after winter break. If I had antibodies - would go donate plasma to help the cause.

[kanga1622]

I would say no as it is highly unlikely that my 4 person family were all completely asymptomatic. We have been in no contact with anyone sick and have no symptoms. So I’d save a test for someone that might actually have worthwhile results.

[Nate79]

Yes, definately interested in getting tested.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Mariposa]

Here's the antibody positive rate in various demographic groups in NYC:
Whites 7%
NYPD 10.5%
Frontline healthcare workers 12%
Transit workers 14%
Manhattan residents 17%
New York City residents overall (sampled from people shopping at supermarkets) 20%
Latinos 27%
Bronx residents 28%

In my particular high-risk healthcare setting, 18% of my colleagues had PCR-confirmed positive test results (NP swabs); a number of people I know were also sick at a time NP swabs weren't offered; and I'm sure there's a significant percent who got infected but remained asymptomatic. I got swabbed once when I had a couple days of mild non-specific symptoms, and the test came out negative. I live with my DH and young child, and none of us have had cough or fever.

The Abbot antibody test (the one offered through my workplace) claims a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 99.5%. If my pre-test probability is 10%, then the positive predictive value of a positive antibody test (PPV) is around 96% (4% chance the false positive). If my pre-test probability is 20%, the PPV increases to 98%.

I'm thinking of getting the antibody test. If negative, I'll assume I haven't been infected (Abbott claims 100% sensitivity). If positive, I'll send my DH to get tested too (Thanks, @zygote ). Concordant results can boost the accuracy of the test. Discordant results make it more likely one of us got a false positive result.

@Dollar Slice We talked about this in your journal. I think the test offered by Quest is actually based on the Abbott test? The test characteristics are not bad, especially if you have a high pre-test probability. I too was going everywhere in Jan/Feb, in crowds, taking public transportation everywhere during rush hour. In retrospect, there definitely was community spread in Feb, but it probably wasn't widespread then. It's also the time of year people are getting colds and flu, so lots of coughing all around. The height of the spread was mid-March, right before the lockdown. I think it's not unreasonable for those of us in a high-prevalence area to get the test.

[Dollar Slice]

@Dollar Slice We talked about this in your journal. I think the test offered by Quest is actually based on the Abbott test? The test characteristics are not bad, especially if you have a high pre-test probability. I too was going everywhere in Jan/Feb, in crowds, taking public transportation everywhere during rush hour. In retrospect, there definitely was community spread in Feb, but it probably wasn't widespread then. It's also the time of year people are getting colds and flu, so lots of coughing all around. The height of the spread was mid-March, right before the lockdown. I think it's not unreasonable for those of us in a high-prevalence area to get the test.

Thanks for that info. I couldn't find detailed information about it when it was first available, but I just did some more looking and it does look like an accurate test. Maybe I will just do it. My parents really want me to come visit and I guess it would be, if nothing else, the only piece of data we could have one way or another.

If I had it, I suspect it was the last couple of days of February. Pre-peak, but not terribly unlikely. My good friend got really sick after his partner returned from an international trip, and I got sick with something that seemed unusual a couple days after I sat next to him at a concert for two hours. I didn't suspect it was from him at the time since it was different than what he had, but now that we have a better idea of the many different ways COVID presents, it would make sense that we could have the same virus with different symptoms. He's 25 years older than me so it also scans that he would have had a weeks-long lingering case and mine was brief.

[Erma]

I am undecided. I was sick with weird symptoms in February like very tired ( fell constantly asleep at 8 pm), had a weird cough, but felt no sickness. But I don't know if the tests are already good enough and available to everyone.

[2Cent]

It depends on the test, but the one available here is quite low in false positives, but doesn't detect cases with mild symptoms very well after it's been cured. I think it's like 60%. Still think I will take it. In the end it's all about risk vs cost. Knowing I have antibodies would reduce the risk part so I would feel a bit more free to go see my parents for instance. Of course all the low cost things like working from home and shopping less I will still do.

[Dollar Slice]

Maybe I will just do it.

Hey-o! The city just announced that they're doing tests on New Yorkers for free and I was able to get an appointment slot this week. :-)   It's at http://nyc.gov/antibodysurvey if any other NYCers want to check it out. They say this particular test is 99.8% accurate.

[Michael in ABQ]

Deployed military. I suspect we'll be getting tested before going home or as soon as we get back.

[partgypsy]

I'm a curious person, and so part of me is curious to get tested. But it doesn't really make sense to get tested. My exposure to other people has been low, and other than my typical allergy symptoms in March, haven't had any symptoms that point to corona virus exposure. Maybe it makes sense to get it in fall or winter, byvwhich there may be more community exposure.

[zygote]

I live in NYC. My wife and I both had tell-tale symptoms mid-March. Based on when we were sick, I was exposed before the lockdowns and then I gave it to her. We weren't able to get swab tests when we were actively ill.

I decided to get the Abbott antibody test a few weeks at the local urgent care. It's only a block away, and they waived the co-pay. Very easy. I haven't gotten the lab bill yet, but it might be free with insurance because it's covid-related. If not, it should just be my normal $20 lab co-pay.

I tested positive, and so did my wife. Between the high selectivity of the Abbott test, the relatively high prevalence in NYC, the fact that we had symptoms, and the fact that we both tested positive, I'm pretty sure we had it. It seems unlikely that we would both get a false positive considering all those things together.

To be honest, the main reason I got the test was curiosity. I'm not changing any of my behavior, because we don't know how protective the antibodies are or how long they last. Still wearing a mask, social distancing, washing hands extensively, etc. But it does bring some peace of mind to think that we might be somewhat protected for the near future. Also, it meant we could donate convalescent plasma. I already donated once last week and have an appointment to go back and donate again at the end of the month. My wife is donating too.

[MayDay]

Nobody in my house has been sick, and we've been isolating, so no point getting tested.

Same. Need a poll option for no, because I don't believe I have been exposed.

[raincoast]

"Yes, for other reasons": I won't seek out the test (I'm not even sure if it will be available to the public where I live). I have no reason to believe I've been infected with COVID, since I haven't been sick this year and the infection rates where I live have been among the lowest of any large city in North America and Europe. But my provincial government plans to conduct a study to determine how many people have been infected with COVID-19. I volunteered, since I want to do what I can to help out. They'll select participants from the volunteers, presumably based on who they need to get a representative sample.

[penguintroopers]

Nobody in my house has been sick, and we've been isolating, so no point getting tested.

Same. Need a poll option for no, because I don't believe I have been exposed.

Added, and poll is set to allow changes on votes.