71–80 of 649 posts
Does anybody know the false positive rate of the test? Could this be an artifact of that plus low actual incidence like: - False positive rate of 10% - 100 tests - 1 true positives. All with symptoms - 9 false positives. All without symptoms (duh!) Headline: "90% asymptomatic!" Truth: "Shitty test procedure!" Yes, yes, I know you know this. Do you think people doing tests and writing headlines know this? What is the…
Isn't this a bit of promising news, means herd immunity is probably much deeper and larger than we are currently aware.
NYC shows that you will end up with probably 0.3% or more of the population dead before you get herd immunity. 0.3% of the entire US population is 1 million people.
I'd guess smoking rates are very high in prisons. It seems smokers (even former) are much better off than non-smokers.
Does anybody know the false positive rate of the test? Could this be an artifact of that plus low actual incidence like: - False positive rate of 10% - 100 tests - 1 true positives. All with symptoms - 9 false positives. All without symptoms (duh!) Headline: "90% asymptomatic!" Truth: "Shitty test procedure!" Yes, yes, I know you know this. Do you think people doing tests and writing headlines know this? What is the…
I don't know a lot about the antibody tests. Is the novel coronavirus novel enough that they know exactly the kind they're testing? Is it a specific test for SARS-CoV-2?
That test has also very carefully been validated, with excellent sensitivity (=few false negatives) and specificity (=few false positives). Not sure all available tests have gone through quite so thorough validation.
Isn't this a bit of promising news, means herd immunity is probably much deeper and larger than we are currently aware.
WHO says we can't assume previous infection means future immunity. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...
> As of 24 April 2020, no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans.
The most likely thing is that it does mean immunity, but the WHO isn't going to say that without clear evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have huge false positive rates though.
Do we know the rates already?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WHO says we can't assume previous infection means future immunity. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...
Not sure why I am getting downvoted, I guess covid-19 shaming is a thing. From what I've read people who appear to get it again is actually just a relapse of the original infection[1]. [1] https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
I've read that asymptomatic carriers are though to be less infectious than those with symptoms because of the lower concentration of virus in the saliva. Also, many virologists mentioned in recent texts that the initial concentration of the virus you receive can affect how sick you'll get - the more viruses you're exposed to, the faster they can invade the body and the more severe it will get. Can those two facts be…
These were exactly the assumptions of the RIVM in the Netherlands end Februari and March causing it to completely spiral out of control.
> Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
> The Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, is a Dutch research institute that is an independent agency of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. RIVM performs tasks to promote public health and a safe living environment by conducting research and collecting knowledge worldwide.
Does anybody know the false positive rate of the test? Could this be an artifact of that plus low actual incidence like: - False positive rate of 10% - 100 tests - 1 true positives. All with symptoms - 9 false positives. All without symptoms (duh!) Headline: "90% asymptomatic!" Truth: "Shitty test procedure!" Yes, yes, I know you know this. Do you think people doing tests and writing headlines know this? What is the…
No, that can’t be the case here, because a shockingly large proportion of people tested positive according to the article. (Thus, either the false positives are negligible, or the test employed has a an astronomical false positive rate (bad specificity)).
Wait, does that pass the smell test? Do prisions become huge flu hotspots as well? The Diamond Princess outbreak didn't have that kind of numbers... What's more likely at this point, the numbers from the article or human error?
My respects to anybody trying to do actual science with this kind of data in this kind of situation...