[nradov]

You're out of the woods. If you're vaccinated then unless you have some high risk condition your real risk is extremely low.

More tests aren't going to solve anything. At best they might slow the spread down only slightly. In the long run everyone will be exposed regardless of whether they go to their favorite hangouts or not. That is our reality.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646

[hooande]

> In the long run everyone will be exposed regardless of whether they go to their favorite hangouts or not. That is our reality.

This can be said of every cold and flu season. Yet people still go out of their way to avoid those who are sick, and people who have symptoms stay home. You probably wouldn't want someone with the flu to cough in your face, even though the symptoms are mild and the mortality is low.

covid is much more infectious than the flu. it makes sense to test and quarantine if you are positive.

[clairity]

> "If you're vaccinated... your real risk is extremely low."

in the interest of precision: the risk of serious sickness/death is low for anyone without comorbidities (like age) regardless of vaccination status; vaccination just makes a small chance smaller, with the diminishing returns that that implies.

vaccination really matters for anyone with comorbidities (age, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, etc.), where risk reduction is significant (whole percentages to fractional ones).

totally agree that testing doesn't change long-run exposure, especially given omicron. the big win for testing though, is knowing how many folks have natural immunity (with or without synthetic immunity), which likely offers broader spectrum immunological memory, imbuing a more durable herd immunity into the future. also, tests might help at the margin for those who have comorbidities, to perhaps allow the pursuit of treatments like monoclonal antibodies earlier.

[nradov]

The government is distributing antigen tests. They don't directly indicate anything about natural immunity, although of course most patients who recover from infection will retain a significant level of cellular immunity.

Doctors don't prescribe monoclonal antibodies or other anti-viral drugs based on a home test. That usually requires a clinical test, as well as some significant symptoms or risk factors.

[clairity]

yes, i wasn't trying to imply that monoclonals would be prescribed based on a home test, just that testing early would provide someone the opportunity to get more aggressive treatments if need be during the critical window of effectiveness.

not sure why the tests being antigen-based matters with regard to indicating natural/cellular immunity, since a positive test result still implies a covid infection in the recent past, which implies a conferral of natural immunity?

[wrycoder]

A quick positive test could get you a Paxlovid prescription, while it's still early enough in the course of infection to have maximal benefit.

[nradov]

Physicians will generally not prescribe Paxlovid based on a home test, they want to see the results of a real clinical test. And Paxlovid supplies are very limited; it will typically only be given to symptomatic patients in high risk groups.

[wonnage]

It still sucks to get Covid, based on my small sample size of a few breakthrough infected friends even "mild" omicron is on par with a bad flu. It's also about 10x as contagious. Most people don't want to infect all their friends if they can help it, so they test.

Also we all have friends and family members with high-risk conditions and don't want to give it to them either.

[nradov]

I understand that people don't want to get infected, but that doesn't change the reality that everyone will be exposed.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072548446/public-health-expe...

The virus isn't going away. No one will be able to avoid it without living as a hermit. The CDC estimated that about 44% of Americans had already been infected as of October 2021 and with the more contagious Omicron variant now circulating we're probably well over 50%.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

Additional home testing is largely a feel-good measure. It might ease some people's anxiety but won't significantly change the course of the pandemic.

[SSilver2k2]

I have an under 5 year old offspring that isn't eligible to get the shot yet. Once he gets them this year I will definitely be breathing easier.

[nradov]

Fortunately the CDC data shows that the risk to young children is very low. Probably less than other common viruses like RSV.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00443.asp

[frereubu]

If it's any consolation it's doing the rounds in my 7-year-old's class and none of them have had much worse than feeling a bit achy with a bit of a temperature. They've all had much worse from the usual bugs that do the rounds at school. Of course this is anecdata, and most people have family or friends who are vulnerable and need to be protected, but if it's just about your child then it's very unlikely to be a problem if they have no underlying conditions.

[hammock]

>If it's any consolation it's doing the rounds in my 7-year-old's class and none of them have had much worse than feeling a bit achy with a bit of a temperature. They've all had much worse from the usual bugs that do the rounds at school. Of course this is anecdata

You aren't crazy. Here's some actual data from the CDC: a child is at least 25 times less likely to be covid hospitalized than an adult under age 50, and 74 times less likely than an someone over age 50. Important caveat that this data is pre-omicron. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

>most people have family or friends who are vulnerable and need to be protected

Couldn't agree more.

[acdha]

Are these kids vaccinated? One of the challenges we have now is making sure to make sure to correct for that since vaccination's protection against severe outcomes has been quite durable even in the face of Omicron's improved evasion.

[hammock]

>vaccination's protection against severe outcomes has been quite durable even in the face of Omicron's improved evasion.

Very interested if you have a source for this claim, as I have been looking for one.

[acdha]

The data is still incomplete since hospitalization is a lagging indicator but here's some data from the UK earlier today. See Table 2:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

44% reduction after 6 months is not great but that's still significantly better than under 20% for preventing symptomatic cases which you have for a 2 dose vaccinated person facing Omicron half a year later.

[hammock]

Thanks. I had seen this data but forgot about it. Appreciate you finding it. Definitely nice to see some protection against severe outcomes remains even if prevention of infection isn't quite as there as we'd like.

However I am not sure if we had started this pandemic with Omicron and a 44% effective vaccine, that we would have put all our eggs in one basket the way we have to date. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.

[frereubu]

No, none of them are vaccinated.