Regarding the anti-body discussion earlier :
1. Studies have between 25-60% asymptomatic cases.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s...ut-those-who-can-pass-corona-without-symptoms
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ases-wuhan-china-symptoms-study-a9424686.html
2. Studies shows many recovered from Covid-10 has low levels of antibodies or none at all. Here is one article about that:
https://www.jwatch.org/fw116548/2020/04/13/sars-cov-2-antibodies-undetectable-some-recovered
3. The antibody test (blood test) will only detect infections after the immune system has produced antibodies that recognise the virus. This happens approx. 7-10 days after symptoms develop.
Antibody tests need to be accurate to help us. That means 3 criterias must be reached:
a) If some people do not produce detectable amounts of the antibody used in the test after infection, or if antibody levels wane with time, the test will be insufficiently sensitive, missing too many infections (false-negative results) to be useful.
b) The test must be specific enough to give high confidence that a positive test result is correct (not a false positive). This is especially true if past infection is uncommon among those who are tested, as in the general population.
c) before an antibody test can be used to indicate that someone is immune to further infection, the level of protection must be demonstrated in experimental trials. While there is a clear link between the presence of the antibody and protective immunity for many common viral infections, this has not yet been confirmed for the new coronavirus. It is possible that people are temporarily protected against reinfection but the protection wanes with time, or that protection operates agains current but not future strains of the new corona virus.
https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/article/vdt0006/
4. It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.
For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference? Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of pursuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus - unable to find new victims - peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune. "The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, said.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/recovering-from-the-coronavirus-may-not-make-you-immune-experts-warn
There are many other elements to this also, but at the moment we do not know if anti-bodies tests will be accurate, we know that propably many will not HAVE any antibodies, we do not know if everyone gets immune, and for how long, we do not know if the antibodies even are good for us, and maybe even the disease can lay dormant for a while and "reinfect" a person already recovered as South Korean studies shows. In some diseases, antibodies can even cause problems where you can easier get other infections and have immune problems etc.
I think it is safe to say that herd immunity seems like a big gamble, and indications is it will not work well, and will propably not last long. Vaccine seems like the only option besides natural mutation into a less harmful virus, like the spanish flu into H1N1 for example. Also anti body testing might not be accurate and may not be the tool governments wants it to be, like WHO tried to say. Everyone can draw their own conclusions, but in reality we do not know much yet. It is all indications and too early to conclude on anything right now. We do not even know if a vaccine will work permanently or will have to be given at certain intervals of time. If we get a fully functioning vaccine.