Why are antibody tests not used as standard covid 19 test?

Since covid 19 infection was declared a pandemic, there were urgent needs in the whole world to contain the monster, on the one hand, and to prevent its spread in the wider populace, on the other. Various measures were put in place as various research groups were working around the clock to come up with an antidote.

In order to identify those with the infection, there was need for an accurate and quick method (s) of detection, to enable quick isolation and quarantine of the infected individuals. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) emerged as one of such method,which was later followed by rapid antigen tests.

On the preventive wing were the lock-downs, curfews and other restrictions, leave alone social distancing and wearing of masks. These measures were meaningful until the vaccines were rolled out. When the vaccines came on the scene, at least some of us thought that most of the preventive measures will be rolled away. Typically, such measures as: social distancing, lock-downs and mask mandates should have been rolled away. But we were told that even when you have been vaccinated, continue to follow the previous standard operating procedures (SOPs). Besides, we were also told that vaccines do not prevent infections, but rather, prevent the development of severe disease!!

However, another notable observation was that vaccine mandates also covered those who had suffered and recovered from the the disease. In other words, the vaccines were superior to natural immunity!! It is not surprising then, that antibody based screening tests have not been rolled out up to now but only restricted to studying as to whether the vaccines illicit antibody production and to what extent. Yet, had such a screening test been rolled out to understand who has been exposed to the virus and fought it either naturally (those who were asymptomatic and those experiencing mild symptoms which clear in a short period) or those whose natural recovery had been assisted by curative drugs, then vaccinations would have been targeted to the right cohort. That is those who had never been infected and thus in need of protection!

Had this approach been followed, then serious lock-downs would have been avoided and of course the ensuing economic collapse would have been avoided.

But what could be the implications of vaccinating those who have recovered?

The most obvious implication will be that if natural immunity is ignored, then the vaccine targets another virus and not the one in the population! Another implication is that immunity to one antigen (spike protein), which all vaccines target, is superior to immunity towards the whole antigen repertoire on the virus to which those who recover are exposed.

However, if those implications are false, then some of the deaths, especially among the vaccinated, could be linked to the body’s over reaction, when responding to the vaccine antigen, since it had already been primed by the virus. Had such individuals been screened for antibody presence, then they should not have received the jab in the first place. Even then you cannot say you are protecting people who have already suffered and recovered!! This is one of the 2020/2021 jokes in both science and politics.