4 ms·
That study did their research in a town that was already infected, meaning that our understanding of the infection rate for Covid-19 is probably lower than real
by three_seagrass 7y ago
That study did their research in a town that was already infected, meaning that our understanding of the infection rate for Covid-19 is probably lower than reality.
- thombat 7y agoPrecisely - as an early outbreak centre that town is referred to as "Germany's Wuhan", and is expected to have among the highest proportion of infected inhabitants. So actually the 15% figure came as a disappointment and something of a surprise.
- standardUser 7y agoA disappointment? NYC has among the highest testing rates in the world and has only found about 1.5% of people infected. If there's another 14% in NYC that have been infected without needing medical attention, that is fantastic news.
- thombat 7y agoThe German town of Gangelt is the study case that the OP was referring to, which thanks to a small population and a well-attended carnival party with many infected attendees and a legion of subsequent linked cases had acquired the reputation that everyone must have been exposed, i.e. a place that would have established something like herd immunity. So to discover that only one in seven inhabitants had detectable antibodies was indeed dismaying: either the infection pattern or the immune response wasn't as expected. Or both.
- three_seagrass 7y agoThat still doesn't change the absolute numbers of people needing medical attention though.