10 ms·

Random testing in Germany has also revealed higher than expected rates of people with antibodies. Their IFR (infected fatality rate) was 2% overall based on non

Random testing in Germany has also revealed higher than expected rates of people with antibodies. Their IFR (infected fatality rate) was 2% overall based on non-random testing. Random testing has yielded an IFR or 0.37%. This does not increase the risk. These tests only test people who had coronavirus. The larger this portion, the more herd immunity there is in the population. It implies that there were a larger than expected number of people who had the virus, at some point in time. But that's a lagging indicator.

jaynetics 7y ago
The lower rate was calculated based on only 7 or 8 fatalities. Also the people in Gangelt, where that test was carried out, are significantly younger than the average German. Their share of people over 75 is 17% below the national average.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  That isn't what I saw when I looked up their demographics, it looked roughly in line, skewing older even. [1] They had 12.8% over 75 as compared to for instance, 9% in Frankfurt [2]. Also in a population of 10,000-ish the number of fatalities would have to be by definition closer to 40. [1] https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/census/nordrhein_westfalen/05370008__gangelt/ https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/census/nordrhein_we... [2] https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/hessen/frankfurt_am_main/06412000__frankfurt_am_main/ https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/hessen/frankfurt_am...
  - jaynetics 7y ago
    Well, you divided the much lower 2011 population by the size of an age group in 2018, and compared that with a random city? For the German average, see https://cdn.britannica.com/34/184234-050-91AEB8AF/age-breakdown-bar-graph-Germany.jpg https://cdn.britannica.com/34/184234-050-91AEB8AF/age-breakd...
system2 7y ago
If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?
- fungi 7y ago
  Because the infection rate is so high.
- amiantos 7y ago
  The 2% number is 2% of people who have bad symptoms die. 0.37% is 0.37% of all people who get it, including those who have mild/no symptoms die. It simply means a much larger percentage of people get it, not that any less people are dying. I’d say there’s a good chance that many of us have gotten it, and spread it, without knowing it.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > The 2% number is 2% of people who have bad symptoms die. I don't believe that's true. In countries such as Spain, right now there are about 80k confirmed recoveries and 19k deaths among a universe of 182k confirmed cases.
    - Tepix 7y ago
      We don't know. There are probably a lot of cases in Spain that are flying under the radar because people without symptoms don't get tested often.
      - rumanator 7y ago
        OP's claim was that "2% of people who have bad symptoms die." From Spain's numbers, around 10% of those experiencing symptoms that lead them to get tested by Spain's health service, which due to scarcity is reserved for serious cases and people on the front lines, have died since the onset of the epidemic.
    - ronhav3 7y ago
      A majority of Spanish fatalities were in nursing homes and other restricted facilities. If the virus penetrates these places, average mortality spikes.
elric 7y ago
I thought there had been cases of people getting reinfected, and that how long the immunity lasts seemed to correlate to how sick you'd been. So the immunity of asymptomatic people wouldn't last very long. Maybe it'll last long enough to make a dent in the infection rate?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > I thought there had been cases of people getting reinfected, and that how long the immunity lasts seemed to correlate to how sick you'd been. What they found so far is that some people had lower levels of antibodies than others, but that it did not correlate to how sick they were. It's also not clear at this point that anyone's been re-infected (although it is possible) because it's much more likely they hadn't recovered but had received a false negative test followed by a positive test.
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    And if some people can be reinfected after one exposure, it's not necessarily a death knell for a potential vaccine -- you get multiple boosters for some viruses for a reason, and the vaccine just has to take in a large enough fraction of the population to protect everyone.
- arrrg 7y ago
  We don’t really know that. However, there are strong indications that PCR false negatives can happen quite a lot late during the illness. Those aren’t re-infections, that's just PCR testing at and around the detection limit. See these graphs from the Munich cluster in Germany: https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1249791222526468099 https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1249791222526468099
sveme 7y ago
Though that study has been criticized for the use of antibodies with cross-reaction with other Coronaviruses, so the numbers aren‘t necessarily to be trusted.
- choeger 7y ago
  But that criticism was unfounded as the actual method was not even published at that point in time. But back-of-the-envelope calculation gives this: Even if that test was only 95% specific, there would still be a 10% spread of actual positive cases.
- neuronic 7y ago
  This is a general problem of antibody tests and precisely the reason why people should not buy those from any retailer (you can in fact do so online or in pharmacies). Unreliable and non-specific. Let's wait for the development of specific viral antigen tests.

jaynetics 7y ago

The lower rate was calculated based on only 7 or 8 fatalities. Also the people in Gangelt, where that test was carried out, are significantly younger than the average German. Their share of people over 75 is 17% below the national average.

arcticbull 7y ago
That isn't what I saw when I looked up their demographics, it looked roughly in line, skewing older even. [1] They had 12.8% over 75 as compared to for instance, 9% in Frankfurt [2]. Also in a population of 10,000-ish the number of fatalities would have to be by definition closer to 40. [1] https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/census/nordrhein_westfalen/05370008__gangelt/ https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/census/nordrhein_we... [2] https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/hessen/frankfurt_am_main/06412000__frankfurt_am_main/ https://www.citypopulation.de/en/germany/hessen/frankfurt_am...
- jaynetics 7y ago
  Well, you divided the much lower 2011 population by the size of an age group in 2018, and compared that with a random city? For the German average, see https://cdn.britannica.com/34/184234-050-91AEB8AF/age-breakdown-bar-graph-Germany.jpg https://cdn.britannica.com/34/184234-050-91AEB8AF/age-breakd...

system2 7y ago

If 0.37% is true, why are the hospitals in this shape?

fungi 7y ago
Because the infection rate is so high.
amiantos 7y ago
The 2% number is 2% of people who have bad symptoms die. 0.37% is 0.37% of all people who get it, including those who have mild/no symptoms die. It simply means a much larger percentage of people get it, not that any less people are dying. I’d say there’s a good chance that many of us have gotten it, and spread it, without knowing it.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > The 2% number is 2% of people who have bad symptoms die. I don't believe that's true. In countries such as Spain, right now there are about 80k confirmed recoveries and 19k deaths among a universe of 182k confirmed cases.
  - Tepix 7y ago
    We don't know. There are probably a lot of cases in Spain that are flying under the radar because people without symptoms don't get tested often.
    - rumanator 7y ago
      OP's claim was that "2% of people who have bad symptoms die." From Spain's numbers, around 10% of those experiencing symptoms that lead them to get tested by Spain's health service, which due to scarcity is reserved for serious cases and people on the front lines, have died since the onset of the epidemic.
  - ronhav3 7y ago
    A majority of Spanish fatalities were in nursing homes and other restricted facilities. If the virus penetrates these places, average mortality spikes.

elric 7y ago

I thought there had been cases of people getting reinfected, and that how long the immunity lasts seemed to correlate to how sick you'd been. So the immunity of asymptomatic people wouldn't last very long. Maybe it'll last long enough to make a dent in the infection rate?

arcticbull 7y ago
> I thought there had been cases of people getting reinfected, and that how long the immunity lasts seemed to correlate to how sick you'd been. What they found so far is that some people had lower levels of antibodies than others, but that it did not correlate to how sick they were. It's also not clear at this point that anyone's been re-infected (although it is possible) because it's much more likely they hadn't recovered but had received a false negative test followed by a positive test.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  And if some people can be reinfected after one exposure, it's not necessarily a death knell for a potential vaccine -- you get multiple boosters for some viruses for a reason, and the vaccine just has to take in a large enough fraction of the population to protect everyone.
arrrg 7y ago
We don’t really know that. However, there are strong indications that PCR false negatives can happen quite a lot late during the illness. Those aren’t re-infections, that's just PCR testing at and around the detection limit. See these graphs from the Munich cluster in Germany: https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1249791222526468099 https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1249791222526468099

sveme 7y ago

Though that study has been criticized for the use of antibodies with cross-reaction with other Coronaviruses, so the numbers aren‘t necessarily to be trusted.

choeger 7y ago
But that criticism was unfounded as the actual method was not even published at that point in time. But back-of-the-envelope calculation gives this: Even if that test was only 95% specific, there would still be a 10% spread of actual positive cases.
neuronic 7y ago
This is a general problem of antibody tests and precisely the reason why people should not buy those from any retailer (you can in fact do so online or in pharmacies). Unreliable and non-specific. Let's wait for the development of specific viral antigen tests.