Suchergebnisse

We study individual demand for COVID-19 antibody tests in an incentivized study on a representative sample of the US population. Almost 2,000 participants trade off obtaining an athome test kit against money. At prices close to zero, 80 percent of individuals want the test. However, this broad support of testing falls sharply with price. Demand decreases by 19 percentage points per $10 price increase. Demand for testing increases with factors related to its potential value, such as age, increased length and strength of protective immunity from antibodies, and greater uncertainty about having had the virus. Willingness to pay for antibody tests also depends on income, ethnicity and political views. Black respondents show significantly lower demand than white and Hispanic respondents, and Trump-supporters demonstrate significantly lower demand for testing. The results suggest that charging even moderate prices for antibody tests could widen health inequalities.

We study individual demand for COVID-19 antibody tests in an incentivized study on a representative sample of the US population. Almost 2,000 participants trade off obtaining an at home test kit against money. At prices close to zero, 80 percent of individuals want the test. However, this broad support of testing falls sharply with price. Demand decreases by 19 percentage points per $10 price increase. Demand for testing increases with factors related to its potential value, such as age, increased length and strength of protective immunity from antibodies, and greater uncertainty about having had the virus. Willingness to pay for antibody tests also depends on income, ethnicity and political views. Black respondents show significantly lower demand than white and Hispanic respondents, and Trump-supporters demonstrate significantly lower demand for testing. The results suggest that charging even moderate prices for antibody tests could widen health ...

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the globe, many nations have started to relax stringent restrictions in an effort to restart the economy. While Member States of the European Union have approached reopening without the use of antibody testing for COVID-19, such testing may be central to a long-term, sustainable strategy for international travel, employment, and the allocation and monitoring of vaccines. As the use of antibody testing to dictate the enjoyment of individual freedom remains highly controversial, we describe its use in the context of three case studies (return to the workplace, travel and vaccination) applying a procedural and substantive legal balancing entailed in the proportionality principle. Differential treatments of individuals based on COVID-19 antibody test results can be justified through the proportionality principle, which offers a sound dividing line between a reasonable and responsible response and an unjust and discriminatory response.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the globe, many nations have started to relax stringent restrictions in an effort to restart the economy. While Member States of the European Union have approached reopening without the use of antibody testing for COVID-19, such testing may be central to a long-term, sustainable strategy for international travel, employment, and the allocation and monitoring of vaccines. As the use of antibody testing to dictate the enjoyment of individual freedom remains highly controversial, we describe its use in the context of three case studies (return to the workplace, travel and vaccination), applying the substantive legal balancing entailed in the proportionality principle. Differential treatment of individuals based on COVID-19 antibody test results can be justified through the proportionality principle, which offers a sound dividing line between a reasonable and responsible response and an unjust and discriminatory response.

The potential role for serological tests in the current COVID-19 pandemic has generated very considerable recent interest across many sectors worldwide, inter alia pathologists seeking additional weapons for their armoury of diagnostic tests; epidemiologists seeking tools to gain seroprevalence data that will inform improved models of the spread of disease; research scientists seeking tools to study the natural history of COVID-19 disease; vaccine developers seeking tools to assess vaccine efficacy in clinical trials; and companies and governments seeking tools to aid return-to-work decision-making. However, much of the local debate to date has centred on questions surrounding whether regulatory approval processes are limiting access to serological tests, and has not paused to consider the intrinsically limiting impact of underlying fundamental biology and immunology on where and how different COVID-19 serological tests can usefully be deployed in the response to the current pandemic. We review, from an immunological perspective, recent experimental evidence on the time-dependency of adaptive immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and the impact of this on the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 antibody tests made at different time points post infection. We interpret this scientific evidence in terms of mooted clinical applications for current COVID-19 antibody tests in identifying acute infections, in confirming recent or past infections at the individual and population level, and in detecting re-infection and protective immunity. We conclude with guidance on where current COVID-19 antibody tests can make a genuine impact in the pandemic.

Based upon data supplied by Dr. S. Gerald Sandler of the American Red Cross from a nationwide sample of 6,470,082 blood donations in the US. Screening costs, estimated AIDS cases prevented by HIV-1 testing of donated blood, indirect and direct benefits of HIV-1 blood testing, costs of adding the HIV-AG test to the blood testing protocol and the benefits of HIV testing using a willingness-to-pay approach.

This paper examines factors that may influence the utilization of HIV testing by high risk drug users. We interviewed 108 active drug users prior to and subsequent to offering HIV testing. No drug use practices or demographic characteristics, besides gender, were associated with testing. A history of previous HIV testing, perceived susceptibility to HIV infection, and prior experience with medical care were also all unrelated to testing. Non-testers were significantly more likely than testers to state that there were no drawbacks to HIV testing. Promoting testing for HIV antibodies in this high risk population may not further public health goals without increased counseling and other services.

We study individual demand for COVID-19 antibody tests in an incentivized study on a representative sample of the US population. Almost 2,000 participants trade off obtaining an at-home test kit against money. At prices close to zero, 80 percent of individuals want the test. However, this broad support of testing falls sharply with price. Demand decreases by 19 percentage points per $10 price increase. Demand for testing increases with factors related to its potential value, such as age, increased length and strength of protective immunity from antibodies, and greater uncertainty about having had the virus. Willingness to pay for antibody tests also depends on income, ethnicity and political views. Trump-supporters demonstrate significantly lower willingness to pay for testing. Black respondents, even if critical of Trump's approach to the crisis, pay less for testing than white and Hispanic respondents. If policy makers want a broad take-up of testing, the results suggest that tests should be for free.

Data collected from 21,168 adults using the 1988 AIDS supplement to the National Health Interview Survey were examined to determine awareness of and experience with HIV antibody testing in the United States. Three-fourths of adults knew of the blood test for HIV antibodies; awareness was lower among Blacks, Hispanics, older adults, and those less educated. Overall, 17 percent of adults had been tested; of these, 73 percent because of blood donation, 14 percent through other non-voluntary programs (such as military induction), and 16 percent sought testing voluntarily. While a smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic adults had been tested, they were more likely than their White non-Hispanic counterparts to have been tested voluntarily. Persons who reported belonging to groups with high-risk behaviors were also more likely to have been voluntarily tested. Most of those tested voluntarily received their test results, but only one-third also received prevention information. Three percent of adults plan to be tested voluntarily in the next year; about half will seek testing through their doctor or health maintenance organization.