Got my COVID-19 antibody test results last night

[Luanne]

Hi Luanne,

How long does it take to develop antibodies after a
coronavirus infection?

It typically takes one to two weeks after someone
becomes sick with COVID-19 for their body to make
antibodies; some people may take longer to develop antibodies.


Richard

Thanks. My question was, do we know for a fact that someone WILL develop antibodies after contracting COVID-19? Have people best tested for the antibodies after they've tested positive for COVID-19? And if this information is somewhere in one of the articles posted I apologize.

 

[MULTIZ321]

P

Thanks. My question was, do we know for a fact that someone WILL develop antibodies after contracting COVID-19? Have people best tested for the antibodies after they've tested positive for COVID-19? And if this information is somewhere in one of the articles posted I apologize.

Yes to all your questions.

Richard

 

[jackio]

Thanks. My question was, do we know for a fact that someone WILL develop antibodies after contracting COVID-19? Have people best tested for the antibodies after they've tested positive for COVID-19? And if this information is somewhere in one of the articles posted I apologize.

MY PMD brought in a few of his post-Covid patients to get the antibody tests, because he has been seeing so many negatives. All of them tested positive for the antibodies. He is convinced that the test is accurate.

 

[DavidnRobin]

I got very sick on January 25th with Flu/Covid-like symptoms, and live in Santa Clara County where C-19 is reported as they first occurrences in the US.

I decided to pay for the Quest C-19 Antibody ($130) test that uses the Abbott assay. The Ab result was negative.

Like many, I was surprised since my illness had all the hallmarks of C-19. Turns out that this is very common - just the flu. I was also scientifically interested as a spent decades developing Antibody and Antigen assays, as well as using the results in disease modeling (for oncology drug development).

Good and bad result I guess.
Bad in that if C-19 Antibodies are neutralizing, I would potentially have immunity or some protection.
Good in that I didn’t pass it to my MIL who died here at our home (in-home Hospice) from a severe respiratory illness (fungal pneumonia) that may have been C-19 related.

Robin got tested for C-19 RNA in March through Project Baseline (because she was caring for her mother) and was negative. It did take 12 days to get her results which is ridiculous.

We have been SIP since March 14, and prepared to go much longer since we have no desire to put ourselves or others at risk for getting C-19.

Some may consider social distancing (etc) as a personal choice - they are mistaken. One’s personal choice may work for them, but not to those they potentially expose others due to their own selfishness or misguided information. C-19 is very virulent and deadly for those at risk. It is not like the flu, and misguided to compare to non-related causes of death.

Also, unless you are getting your information from Scientists that specialize in immunology, virology, epidemiology (etc) — AND results/reports are peer-reviewed (e.g. NEJM) - you really should keep your gut-feel (opinion) to yourself. Misinformation and disinformation is deadly and will (and has) kill/sicken others needlessly.

Think of the C-19 virus as the more exposure that occurs increases the risk of receiving a viral load that leads to illness. This is why workers that have constant low exposure to others (healthcare, grocery clerks, TSA, etc) are getting infected because their viral load increases with each interaction to the point where the body’s immune system fails to fight off the virus. This is why people can be C-19 positive but asymptomatic (exposed, but not to levels where the body’s immune system cannot fight off). This exposure will also lead to anti-C19 antibodies without ever having symptoms.

Stay away from situations that put you in close contact with others - especially in conditions with poor air circulation (indoors), or around people not wearing adequate masks, or people that are not social-distancing in their interactions. And wash your hands - try not to touch your face...
This is fact - not opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Panina]

I got very sick on January 25th with Flu/Covid-like symptoms, and live in Santa Clara County where C-19 is reported as they first occurrences in the US.

I decided to pay for the Quest C-19 Antibody ($130) test that uses the Abbott assay. The Ab result was negative.

Like many, I was surprised since my illness had all the hallmarks of C-19. Turns out that this is very common - just the flu. I was also scientifically interested as a spent decades developing Antibody and Antigen assays, as well as using the results in disease modeling (for oncology drug development).

Good and bad result I guess.
Bad in that if C-19 Antibodies are neutralizing, I would potentially have immunity or some protection.
Good in that I didn’t pass it to my MIL who died here at our home (in-home Hospice) from a severe respiratory illness (fungal pneumonia) that may have been C-19 related.

Robin got tested for C-19 RNA in March through Project Baseline (because she was caring for her mother) and was negative. It did take 12 days to get her results which is ridiculous.

We have been SIP since March 14, and prepared to go much longer since we have no desire to put ourselves or others at risk for getting C-19.

Some may consider social distancing (etc) as a personal choice - they are mistaken. One’s personal choice may work for them, but not to those they potentially expose others due to their own selfishness or misguided information. C-19 is very virulent and deadly for those at risk. It is not like the flu, and misguided to compare to non-related causes of death.

Also, unless you are getting your information from Scientists that specialize in immunology, virology, epidemiology (etc) — AND results/reports are peer-reviewed (e.g. NEJM) - you really should keep your gut-feel (opinion) to yourself. Misinformation and disinformation is deadly and will (and has) kill/sicken others needlessly.

Think of the C-19 virus as the more exposure that occurs increases the risk of receiving a viral load that leads to illness. This is why workers that have constant low exposure to others (healthcare, grocery clerks, TSA, etc) are getting infected because their viral load increases with each interaction to the point where the body’s immune system fails to fight off the virus. This is why people can be C-19 positive but asymptomatic (exposed, but not to levels where the body’s immune system cannot fight off). This exposure will also lead to anti-C19 antibodies without ever having symptoms.

Stay away from situations that put you in close contact with others - especially in conditions with poor air circulation (indoors), or around people not wearing adequate masks, or people that are not social-distancing in their interactions. And wash your hands - try not to touch your face...
This is fact - not opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like how you presented this. Everything I read, makes me feel it is how much of viral load you get that determines if you get sick. Masks, distance, handwashing and keep moving if in a store I feel lessens the risk even though not completely. At this time I would never sit down in a restaurant as that would keep me in one place too long.

 

[BJRSanDiego]

Thanks to those who directed me to the scientific articles.

I read the following about the Abbott test (which was supposedly really accurate in terms of false negatives) and was surprised. But it was an article from MSN, so it is anyone's guess whether or not it is based on fact. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/he...minary-study-says/ar-BB142T65?ocid=spartandhp

 

[Miss Marty]

Covid - 19 Test
for Past Infection

There are Two Kinds of Tests

Antibody tests identify antibodies to the virus, usually in blood

Antibodies are made by your immune system to fight off viruses or bacteria
Some antibodies (IgG) begin to develop when you are sick and can be identified after you recover
The body starts to produce IgG antibodies 10 to 14 days after infection

Diagnostic tests identify virus in the body

These are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests (also called molecular tests)
These tests give a sign that the virus is reproducing in your cells

Remember that no tests are perfect!

 

[Brett]

Covid - 19 Test
for Past Infection

There are Two Kinds of Tests

Antibody tests identify antibodies to the virus, usually in blood

Antibodies are made by your immune system to fight off viruses or bacteria
Some antibodies (IgG) begin to develop when you are sick and can be identified after you recover
The body starts to produce IgG antibodies 10 to 14 days after infection

Diagnostic tests identify virus in the body

These are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests (also called molecular tests)
These tests give a sign that the virus is reproducing in your cells

Remember that no tests are perfect!

no question early COVID19 testing makes a difference

 

[CO skier]

no question early COVID19 testing makes a difference



View attachment 20638

No, the "best" results are in Germany, Finland, South Korea, Denmark, Austria, and especially Japan that have the least amount of testing and the least amount of deaths, if I read the axes correctly.

 

[TravelTime]

Based on this graph, it seems that testing rate does not matter.

 

[CO skier]

Based on this graph, it seems that testing rate does not matter.

Correct. This is what is referred to as a "scatter plot." There is no correlation.

And really, not one country falls into the upper right quadrant -- more testing, more deaths? I suppose it is possible ...

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Correct. This is what is referred to as a "scatter plot." There is no correlation.

And really, not one country falls into the upper right quadrant -- more testing, more deaths? I suppose it is possible ...

Not to mention that correlation is not causation.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Remember that no tests are perfect!

Also remember that until the virus becomes widespread, most of the positives recorded will be false positives.

Let's assume that you test 100,000 individuals at random in a population where 2% of the test population has the virus (or the antibody, depending on which test you are running).

Say you've got a pretty good test, that has a five percent rate of false positives. (Recognize that if you want a test that has fast turnaround and can be administered in quantity, you're going to need to sacrifice somewhere on precision and accuracy.) So out of those 100,000 tests, 2,000 come back as true positives. But now you have 98,000 other tests, of which 5% are false positives. That's 4900 false positives, as compared with 2000 true positives - 71% of positives are false positives.

So if you get tested and it comes back positive, that's a 71% chance that you just got a false positive. If it's an antibody test and you think that a positive antibody test is a "Get Out of Quarantine Free" card, then you may have a deadly surprise awaiting you.

 

[bluehende]

Also remember that until the virus becomes widespread, most of the positives recorded will be false positives.

Let's assume that you test 100,000 individuals at random in a population where 2% of the test population has the virus (or the antibody, depending on which test you are running).

Say you've got a pretty good test, that has a five percent rate of false positives. (Recognize that if you want a test that has fast turnaround and can be administered in quantity, you're going to need to sacrifice somewhere on precision and accuracy.) So out of those 100,000 tests, 2,000 come back as true positives. But now you have 98,000 other tests, of which 5% are false positives. That's 4900 false positives, as compared with 2000 true positives - 71% of positives are false positives.

So if you get tested and it comes back positive, that's a 71% chance that you just got a false positive. If it's an antibody test and you think that a positive antibody test is a "Get Out of Quarantine Free" card, then you may have a deadly surprise awaiting you.

That is the problem with all the emergency approvals. While a decent test is better than no test you have to realize what you can and cannot measure with them. One of the best lessons I learned in research is that it is just as important to know what you do not know as to know what you do know.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Also remember that until the virus becomes widespread, most of the positives recorded will be false positives.

Your initial premise - before the math - is not correct.

Why do I state this?
I spent decades developing Antibody assays (including neutralizing antibody assays) and antigen assays - as well as using these data (among other data) in disease modeling for determining drug dosage within therapeutic windows. (and published in peer reviewed journals - mainly clinical pharmacology).

I am not saying tests are perfect - they are certainly not and there is always a balance between false positives and false negatives - but the fallacy is assuming a 5% false positive rate in the background of a true 2% rate. Your math is correct enough based on these numbers - but the numbers are speculative until the real data is produced and importantly verified because... junk in => junk out.

An antibody test has both sensitivity and specificity considerations. A person can get exposed to C-19 and be asymptomatic for two main reasons: their viral load was not high enough to initiate symptoms and/or their immune response was able to neutralize the virus. This means that they could be exposed (without major symptoms) and still be antibody positive. This ties to the C-19 RNA assay (rtPCR in most cases) in that you can be exposed to C-19 without symptoms (as above).

Just saying be careful when hypothesizing or speculating about projections - as projections are often incorrect due to poor data and high variability.

There are things that are known and being discovered daily - but there are many unknowns that complicate projections - and there are things that are effectively impossible (like developing a vaccine prior to an outbreak of an unknown virus).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

I spent decades developing Antibody assays (including neutralizing antibody assays) and antigen assays - as well as using these data (among other data) in disease modeling for determining drug dosage within therapeutic windows. (and published in peer reviewed journals - mainly clinical pharmacology).

Thanks, Dave! We all benefit by your posts on this topic. (Hi to R!).

 

[CO skier]

I am not saying tests are perfect - they are certainly not and there is always a balance between false positives and false negatives - but the fallacy is assuming a 5% false positive rate in the background of a true 2% rate. Your math is correct enough based on these numbers - but the numbers are speculative until the real data is produced and importantly verified because... junk in => junk out.

I think you may have misinterpreted the phrase

Let's assume

I interpreted that phrase to mean "as an example for illustration" not that any existing test for Covid-19 has those specific characteristics.

I learned a lot from the mathematical analysis. Before this thread, I thought a test with a 5% rate of false positives offers a 95% rate of "true" positives. Now I know QUITE the opposite is true early-on in the testing (and will not waste any money on a Covid-19 anti-body test).

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I think you may have misinterpreted the phrase

I interpreted that phrase to mean "as an example for illustration" not that any existing test for Covid-19 has those specific characteristics.

I learned a lot from the mathematical analysis. Before this thread, I thought a test with a 5% rate of false positives offers a 95% rate of "true" positives. Now I know QUITE the opposite is true early-on in the testing (and will not waste any money on a Covid-19 anti-body test).

Bingo. And it puts a different light on the comments made at the beginning of this thread about the significance of receiving a positive antibody test, including mine.

Unless you have some sense of what the false positive rate is for a test and what the general level of positives are in the population, it's real difficult to know how significant that result is.

 

[b2bailey]

I had been thinking I would have an antibodies test when it was available to me, but after reading all this I'm thinking 'why bother'.

 

[SmithOp]

Quest is offering test without a referral if you pay for it, not eligible for insurance reimbursement. $119 plus a service fee.

Questdirect

questdirect.questdiagnostics.com

Note: This test can sometimes detect antibodies from other coronaviruses, which can cause a false positive result if you have been previously diagnosed with or exposed to other types of coronaviruses. Additionally, if you test too soon, your body may not have produced enough IgG antibodies to be detected by the test yet, which can lead to a false negative result.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Brett]

I haven't taken a coronavirus test ... - it could be expensive

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/upshot/coronavirus-tests-unpredictable-prices.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Two Friends in Texas Were Tested for Coronavirus. One Bill Was $199. The Other $6,408.

It’s an example of the unpredictable way health prices can vary for patients who receive identical care.

As a precaution before a camping trip, Jimmy Harvey and Pam LeBlanc were tested for coronavirus at the same place in Austin. Their financial experiences, though, were very different.

Before a camping and kayaking trip along the Texas Coast, Pam LeBlanc and Jimmy Harvey decided to get coronavirus tests. They wanted a bit more peace of mind before spending 13 days in close quarters along with three friends.

The two got drive-through tests at Austin Emergency Center in Austin. The center advertises a “minimally invasive” testing experience in a state now battling one of the country’s worst coronavirus outbreaks. Texas recorded 5,799 new cases Sunday, and recently reversed some if its reopening policies.

They both recalled how uncomfortable it was to have the long nasal swab pushed up their noses. Ms. LeBlanc’s eyes started to tear up; Mr. Harvey felt as if the swab “was in my brain.”

Their tests came back with the same result — negative, allowing the trip to go ahead — but the accompanying bills were quite different.

The emergency room charged Mr. Harvey $199 in cash. Ms. LeBlanc, who paid with insurance, was charged $6,408.

“I assumed, like an idiot, it would be cheaper to use my insurance than pay cash right there,” Ms. LeBlanc said. “This is 32 times the cost of what my friend paid for the exact same thing.

Ms. LeBlanc’s health insurer negotiated the total bill down to $1,128. The plan said she was responsible for $928 of that.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Our city is offering SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) testing for free to people w/o symptoms that work or live here.
We may do this since the swabs are shorter and self-administered. They are trying to estimate asymptomatic rates.

Robin had a free C-19 test via Project Baseline in March because we were caring for elderly mother. (Negative)

Out of curiosity, I paid $130 (Quest) for an antibody test as I was very sick in late January- it was negative. It was just the flu.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

I had an antibody test last week when I went to Quest for routine blood tests (FYI, I simply asked my doc to prescribe it). Negative.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk