Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
1–10 of 209 posts
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#2That is certainly alarming that it is so much more widespread than expected - it really highlights the failure of our controls against the virus and the importance of early testing. It I'd good news that this implies the death rate is less severe.
However, a caveat is that antibody tests might have high rates of false positives, which would be a particularly large problem when very few people are actually positive. So read this with a grain of salt. The paper isn't peer reviewed yet etc.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#3I think the numbers will coma out to show this ripped through the USA in February; we slammed the barn doors closed well after the horse was gone.
Of course that's not the narrative that fits agendas so just like with "why cant we test people?" back then, there will be many official reasons not to look for antibody data and to doubt what data gets gathered.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#4That is certainly alarming that it is so much more widespread than expected - it really highlights the failure of our controls against the virus and the importance of early testing. It I'd good news that this implies the death rate is less severe. However, a caveat is that antibody tests might have high rates of false positives, which would be a particularly large problem when very few people are actually positive. S…
On the contrary, this is not alarming at all.
It would point out that actual Covid-19 mortality could be close to that of seasonal flu, as it tells us the number of people infected is 50X-85X than the number of confirmed cases.
Assuming the data is reliable, of course.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#5I think the numbers will coma out to show this ripped through the USA in February; we slammed the barn doors closed well after the horse was gone. Of course that's not the narrative that fits agendas so just like with "why cant we test people?" back then, there will be many official reasons not to look for antibody data and to doubt what data gets gathered.
Based on the difference between CA and NY, I'd be willing to bet that it got here earlier, maybe in December.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#6That is certainly alarming that it is so much more widespread than expected - it really highlights the failure of our controls against the virus and the importance of early testing. It I'd good news that this implies the death rate is less severe. However, a caveat is that antibody tests might have high rates of false positives, which would be a particularly large problem when very few people are actually positive. S…
Most signs so far suggest that the virus is basically uncontainable, short of everyone on the planet taking aggressive measures to stop it escaping China back in January or December.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#7That is certainly alarming that it is so much more widespread than expected - it really highlights the failure of our controls against the virus and the importance of early testing. It I'd good news that this implies the death rate is less severe. However, a caveat is that antibody tests might have high rates of false positives, which would be a particularly large problem when very few people are actually positive. S…
On the contrary, this is not alarming at all. It would point out that actual Covid-19 mortality could be close to that of seasonal flu, as it tells us the number of people infected is 50X-85X than the number of confirmed cases. Assuming the data is reliable, of course.
the authors infer an IFR of 0.12 - 0.2% which is smaller than other antibody studies (like the one in germany which inferred
0.37% IIRC). While it s indeed small, it reflects the current situation, not what will happen 2 weeks down the road, plus the sensitivity of their antibody testing is not precisely known yet.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#8Caveat from the paper:
"This study had several limitations. First, our sampling strategy selected for members of Santa Clara County with access to Facebook and a car to attend drive-through testing sites. This resulted in an over-representation of white women between the ages of 19 and 64, and an under-representation of Hispanic and Asian populations, relative to our community. Those imbalances were partly addressed by weighting our sample population by zip code, race, and sex to match the county. We did not account for age imbalance in our sample, and could not ascertain representativeness of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in homeless populations. Other biases, such as bias favoring individuals in good health capable of attending our testing sites, or bias favoring those with prior COVID-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation are also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain."
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#9The problem with every one of these studies I've seen is that they come up with around 3% of the population having antibodies, while a typical false-positive rate for these tests is also around 3%. In this case they claim they adjust for the specificity (basically false-positive rate), but I didn't see that they reported what the specificity was.
If the mortality really is very low, then it should be easy to prove. Just go to NYC, do some random testing, and show us an infection rate that far exceeds the false-positive rate.
Re: Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
#10I think the numbers will coma out to show this ripped through the USA in February; we slammed the barn doors closed well after the horse was gone. Of course that's not the narrative that fits agendas so just like with "why cant we test people?" back then, there will be many official reasons not to look for antibody data and to doubt what data gets gathered.
At 3-4%? Herd immunity needs 70% in US. COVID-19 can not have spread freely if only 3% people are infected.
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)301...