Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

jcm.asm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 275 posts

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#241

Post by drran »

nitrogen wrote: post #196
not2b wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 out of 421 NYC residents have died, based on today's numbers, and recent serological tests estimated that 20% of residents were exposed. If that's right, then the death rate would be about 1/84, or about 1.2%. But I've seen other claims that the exposure rate in NYC is higher, which would give a lower fatality rate.

If I'm interpreting this[0] right, it looks like the normal death rate is 3.51 per 421 people per year. 1/421 in NYC (is that just COVID cases or all excess deaths?) is over much less than a year, so it seems fairly serious. But I also had a truly "weird cold" go through my workplace early this year in SFBA, so I still have to wonder what that was. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+death+rate+*+421+pe...

Average death rate is 1/65-1/80 per year, or 1.5-1.2%, depending on country life expectancy.

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#242

Post by drran »

pnako wrote: post #165
bb2018 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't true. The bats that it mostly likely come from are in China - but in Southern China about 1000 miles from Wuhan.

In Wuhan is the lab that was researching the virus from those bats.

In Russia, virus lab had major incident at Sep 16 2019. Paint job caused blast and fire, so responders come in to fight fire and STOLE SOME EQUIPMENT FROM LEVEL 4 VIRUS LAB, which was caught on video here: https://youtu.be/_w7SAeNcXA8?t=63 (look at man in uniform in background).

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#243

Post by docbrown »

bparsons wrote: post #240
bb2018 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - if someone could point me to a nursing home where 5% of the population died in a week in December/January I'd believe it - anecdotes about people being having the flu in the winter isn't the most convincing.

It is not particularly unusual for a nursing home to see very high death rates around flu season. In the UK, where they have an excellent healthcare system, the average lifespan of a nursing home resident is 2.2 years. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6143238/

somewhat of a dated article (2010) but the average lifespan of those admitted to nursing homes for EoLC is actually only about six months.[1]

however, some may stay longer, but then they have to worry about their condition worsening and eventually not allowing them to do ADLs (bathing, eating, dressing) on their own. the average length of stay before disablement is close to two years [2]

1: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415....

2: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/74/6/917/...

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#245

Post by jjjensen90 »

arcticbull wrote: post #185
saiya-jin wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Tend to' doesn't mean some conscious, directed effort. On large enough scale, this is generally the more probable direction, and that's about it. Its truly random by nature. It can very well go the other way as with 1918 'spanish' flu. Or it can change in ways that won't affect overall mortality much.

> On large enough scale, this is generally the more probable direction, and that's about it. Its truly random by nature. If it's truly random it wouldn't be directional, yeah?

The genetic mutations are random, the survival of a lineage based on pressures and fitness can be "directional" by the human definition.

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#246

Post by SethTro »

3001 wrote: post #155
SethTro wrote: post #124

Slightly misleading headline. The test is not new, it's been launched since April and has already shipped 10M tests. According to https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-05-08-Research-from-Univer...

It's new.This is the second antibody test Abbott is launching. Disclosure: I work for Abbott.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#247

Post by raducu »

taeric wrote: post #208
not2b wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 out of 421 NYC residents have died, based on today's numbers, and recent serological tests estimated that 20% of residents were exposed. If that's right, then the death rate would be about 1/84, or about 1.2%. But I've seen other claims that the exposure rate in NYC is higher, which would give a lower fatality rate.

Don't forget to factor this breaking through to long term care facilities. From the last I looked at this, if it had not hit long term care, the number of deaths would have been low enough that it may have gone undetected longer. (In WA, 92% of the deaths are still folks over sixty! I don't know the numbers for how many of them were in long term care.) Which is to say, you can't just look at the population death rate…

A friend of a friend got released from the hospital, she had covid-19 and was searching for an oxygen concentrator for her (permanent?) lung damage.

She's 29 and otherwise healthy. I'm sure we would have noticed this disease without the high mortality rate among the elderly.

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#248

Post by iso947 »

ShinTakuya wrote: post #204
usaar333 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a 99.9% specitivity good enough though to conclude you had covid? Assuming you are in the US, your prior on having been infected in early February is well below 0.1% (not sure how much the covid-like symptoms would boost that). So conditionally speaking, it seems quite plausible this is a false positive.

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence for people experiencing strange flu-like illnesses all around the world as early as January. It's possible GP was infected with the weaker strain that was said to have existed (although I'm not sure if that argument's been refuted by now, I remember it was controversial).

“anecdotal evidence”

That an oxymoron

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#249

Post by DoingIsLearning »

Ladyady wrote: post #244

If you live in the UK, you can get Abbott's test from Forth: https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/18441478.first-to-mar...

> All kits can be purchased online with the samples taken in the home or workplace, before being sent away for analysis.

Is this possible for other EU countries or is the lab analysis/transport limited to UK only?

Re: New Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody test has 99.90% specificity and 100% sensitivity

#250

Post by iso947 »

StavrosK wrote: post #178
wtvanhest wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you or someone else mind expanding on this thought a little? Why does 99.9% specificity mean that 10% will be false positives? {added: great answers below} well worth understanding this point. In short specificity measures the % of the population tested which had false positives, but doesn't give you the ratio of false positives to positives or the probability that a positive test means you actually have the an…

I think it's easier to understand when you take it to the extremes: Assume nobody has the thing you're testing for. You test 100k people at 99.9% specificity, which means you get 1k positives just because of the rate. Since nobody hass the thing you're testing for, they're all false. When the thing you're testing for is very rare, it's just as rare that the people who tested positive will actually have it.

But we know there are more than 1% cases.

We have good data that the IFR is in the 0.1-1% range, putting cases in say MA in the 7% range a couple of weeks ago (time from infection to death), which based on confirmed cases would put it well above 10% now

That means you’d have 1k false positive and 10k true positive from a test.

Post reply on HN