Development of a high throughput SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing pathway using dried blood spot specimens

Background: Serologic assays for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have roles in seroepidemiology, convalescent plasma-testing, antibody durability and vaccine studies. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 serology is performed using serum/plasma collected by venepuncture. Dried bloodspot (DBS) testing offers significant advantages; as it is minimally invasive, avoids venepuncture with specimens being mailed to the laboratory. Methods: A pathway utilising a newborn screening laboratory infrastructure was developed using an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in DBS specimens. Paired plasma and DBS specimens from SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive and negative subjects and PCR positive subjects were tested. DBS specimen stability, effect of blood volume and punch location were also evaluated. Results: DBS from antibody-negative (n=85) and positive (n=35) subjects and PCR positive subjects (n=11) had a mean (SD; range) optical density (OD) of 0.14 (0.046; 0.03-0.27), 0.98 (0.41; 0.31-1.64) and 1.12 (0.37; 0.49-1.54), respectively. An action value OD >0.28 correctly assigned all cases. The weighted Deming regression for comparison of the DBS and the plasma assay yielded: y=0.004041+1.005x, r=0.991, Sy/x 0.171, n=82. Extraction efficiency of antibodies from DBS was >99%. DBS were stable for at least 28 days at ambient room temperature and humidity. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 IgG RBD antibodies can be reliably detected in DBS. DBS serological testing offers lower costs than either point of care or serum/plasma assays that require patient travel, phlebotomy and hospital/clinic resources; the development of a DBS assay may be particularly important for resource poor settings

On benevolence and love of others

Hobbes is famous for his insights into the impact of man’s fear, glory and greed on war and peace, not for his views on the bearing of men’s benevolence on the commonwealth. Are Hobbesian people even capable of love of others? In the literature, we find two main answers: one view is that Hobbes ruled out the possibility of disinterested benevolence among men; the other is that Hobbes considered actions driven by genuine benevolence possible but uncommon. After reviewing in broad outlines the two above positions, this chapter seeks to demonstrate the claim that Hobbes did not consider relevant to establish if men are capable of genuine benevolence or not, because he maintained that benevolent men can be as inept as egoists in differentiating apparent and real good for themselves and their loved ones and the effect of misguided altruism on the commonwealth is as damaging as the effect of ill-advised egoism.Postprin