[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?