Live data from Hacker News

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

jcm.asm.org

271–275 of 275 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That effect doesn't seem like it would skew a larger difference between Alberta and NYC test positivity rates. If anything, that would depress Alberta test positivity rates more than NYC ones, since we've got more spare testing capacity for people without all the right symptoms.

What does Alberta have to do with anything?

It's the "we" (I live in Alberta) I was originally referring to with the 3.5% test positivity rate.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people say that because .25% of the population in NYC are dead from covid. we dont see those numbers here -- if it was widespread in feb, what caused the discrepancy?

I guess we need to know the total number of cases to figure out what the deaths mean, and until everyone has gotten an antibody test, we can't know that total number. To make the numbers work for the "weird cold" in early February case, I guess we have to work backwards. Assume that when we went into lockdown was the actual peak, 8 million people in New York City had COVID-19. That means that there is one death for e…

> Then we have to pick a reproduction rate, which I have no idea how to pick, so I'll say that it increases by 1.5x every day (so on day one you have x cases, then on day 2 you have x + 1.5x, then on day 3 you have x + 1.5x + (1.5)^2x, etc

> I know I've pulled these numbers out of my nether region and so they are likely very wrong. But with some back-of-the-envelope math, I think we can have some sick people in February without a lot of deaths.

Yeah, in two ways: That's not how the growth rate math works, but if we went by your math instead of the number, that's about 4-5x faster than what we were seeing in March.

A growth rate of 1.5 means if we had X cases on day 1, we'd have X(1.5^1) on day 2, and X(1.5^2) on day 3. This virus's growth rate at the beginning of the pandemic stage was around 1.4 (or to use your math, 0.4? I'm not sure what you meant by "(1.5)^2x", is that a typo of "(1.5^2)x" or did you mean 1.5^(2x)"? The second one is straight wrong).

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

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government was serious about homeland security and restoring the economy they would be subsidizing testing full boat.

The government has made it clear that this is about politics and business, not safety or public health.

If it were about business, they would be funding testing.

Knowing who can safely go back to work gets your economy open faster than blindly just flipping the switch like they’re doing now.

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

#275

I took this antibody test through LabCorp on Friday and tested positive. I have been in strict (see: paranoid) isolation with one other person since March 7 and haven't felt sick or anything close to it since then. I did have what I thought was a strange flu/cold early February with a sore throat, post-nasal drip, wildly varying body temperature, and lower back pains. In hindsight those are COVID-19 symptoms. the per…

How do you know you got that specific test? It looks like it's their second IgG antibody test and their fourth overall[1]. It also looks like the architect moniker just seems to be their testing platform? I assume their previous IgG antibody test was built on it.

I don't know much about this space, would just like to get the test done and would prefer one with high specificity and low false positive rate.

[1] https://www.medtechdive.com/news/latest-abbott-coronavirus-a...

Post reply on HN