3 ms·
The 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 ra
by DennisP 7y ago
The 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.
- CubsFan1060 7y agoThis is certainly not a study. And certainly shouldn't be taken as good data of any kind, but it is interesting: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-in-pregnant-woman-high-nyc.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-in-pregnant-woman-hi... Sure as hell isn't random (all pregnant women... so all women for one. All at the same hospital is another). "Between March 22 and April 4, those hospitals screened 215 pregnant women for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), and 33 women, or 15%, tested positive. Of these who tested positive, 29 women — or nearly 14% — showed no symptoms."
- eightysixfour 7y agoAnyone know if there's been a follow-up to see if the women eventually developed symptoms?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]