4 ms·

What we need now is antibody testing, not testing for Covid-19. All the antibody studies in the US so far are showing that antibodies are present in at least a

What we need now is antibody testing, not testing for Covid-19. All the antibody studies in the US so far are showing that antibodies are present in at least an order of magnitude greater number of people than the official number of people with Covid-19. This has huge implications for our response. Given this new data, LA is suggesting [1] that ~5% of the population of LA has already developed antibodies, which would mean the fatality rate may be as low as 0.10-0.20%. (For comparison, the seasonal flu is 0.05%-0.10%.) Knowing if this is really the case for the entire nation would have huge implications for our response. 1. https://www.facebook.com/countyofla/videos/537241533852930/ https://www.facebook.com/countyofla/videos/537241533852930/

faitswulff 7y ago
Additionally, we need to find out how long antibodies confer immunity for.
bosswipe 7y ago
Those LA and Santa Clara studies have come under intense criticism. From other data it looks like the number is closer to .5% than .1%.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  Which is still a far cry from the 4% mortality rate predicted in March.
  - bosswipe 7y ago
    As more data comes in the estimates will continue to be refined.
  - ggreer 7y ago
    What prominent institutions or figures were claiming a 4% IFR in March? They may have been saying that for case fatality rates, but not infections.
gnulinux 7y ago
NY study shows fatality rate can be between 0.5% to 1%. I don't think 0.1% to 0.2% is likely.
throwawayiionqz 7y ago
Number of deaths in NYC divided by total population is 15,000/8,000,000. This already puts the fatality rate at at least 0.2. But the consequences are far from over and the number of deaths will keep climbing, so your "fatality rate may be as low as 0.10-0.20%" is completely off the mark. edit: I am sorry if my tone was interpreted as confrontational. I otherwise agree with the parent's post that we need much more antibody testing.
- nostromo 7y ago
  Feel free to take it up with the Stanford researchers and the LA county health commissioner. I'm simply sharing their reports.
  - ltbarcly3 7y ago
    You are taking their preliminary, non-peer reviewed data and making poorly founded arguments on top of them.
  - throwawayiionqz 7y ago
    I am simply trying to slow the spread of non-sensical numbers. The total population divided by number of deaths provide a factual lower bound and arguing against that is not sensible. Flaws in the Stanford study has already been highlighted extensively, see for instance https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw... and the insightful comments. The issue is not to take it up with the authors but whether the authors might listen and take back what they claimed on popular political TV shows. [1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjCitwKJSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjCitwKJSQ
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
ltbarcly3 7y ago
We also know that mortality rates have jumped up well beyond what is being reported in official covid mortality, with no other reasonable explanation apart from Covid. https://theweek.com/speedreads/910226/excess-mortality-data-suggests-many-25000-uncounted-coronavirus-deaths https://theweek.com/speedreads/910226/excess-mortality-data-... Frankly, it's just wishful thinking to cherry pick the highest estimate for the number of people who have been infected, and the lowest estimate for the number of deaths.
matwood 7y ago
The existing antibody studies have come under scrutiny for a multitude of reasons. One, the samples were not randomized. Two, the tests are not very accurate. Three, we are still unsure what level of antibodies will confer immunity if at all. Also, a raw fatality rate is useless in a vacuum. NYC has had a lot of deaths and if wasn't for the shelter in place, hospitals may have been completely overwhelmed. Fatality rate be damned. Finally, comparing COVID-19 to the seasonal flu is simply incorrect in nearly all instances. For example, the seasonal flu fatality rate is likely much lower than listed because of how many cases never get counted. In order to even think about comparing the two, we would also need proper antibody studies done for the season flu in prior years and not just either presented cases or estimates. Edit - added links to some information https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-covid-19-is-not-just-a-bad-flu/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-covid-19-is-not-just-a-b... https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-sug...
brazzy 7y ago
> All the antibody studies in the US so far are showing that antibodies are present in at least an order of magnitude greater number of people than the official number of people with Covid-19. These results may not be accurate either, though. At least some antibody tests give false positives for antibodies to other Coronavirus strains.
wonderwonder 7y ago
We still dont know if the antibodies confer any sort of short / long term immunity at all. For all we know we could get the virus, fight it off and get it again. Rinse and repeat. While all data is useful there is still so much we don't know that hampers us from putting this data to use. General lack of testing though is going to severely hamper our response to this. Overall unfortunately the federal government has failed to rise to the occasion.
ta1771 7y ago
Are we able to test for all 8 strains at once?

faitswulff 7y ago

Additionally, we need to find out how long antibodies confer immunity for.

bosswipe 7y ago

Those LA and Santa Clara studies have come under intense criticism. From other data it looks like the number is closer to .5% than .1%.

jonny_eh 7y ago
Which is still a far cry from the 4% mortality rate predicted in March.
- bosswipe 7y ago
  As more data comes in the estimates will continue to be refined.
- ggreer 7y ago
  What prominent institutions or figures were claiming a 4% IFR in March? They may have been saying that for case fatality rates, but not infections.

gnulinux 7y ago

NY study shows fatality rate can be between 0.5% to 1%. I don't think 0.1% to 0.2% is likely.

throwawayiionqz 7y ago

Number of deaths in NYC divided by total population is 15,000/8,000,000. This already puts the fatality rate at at least 0.2. But the consequences are far from over and the number of deaths will keep climbing, so your "fatality rate may be as low as 0.10-0.20%" is completely off the mark. edit: I am sorry if my tone was interpreted as confrontational. I otherwise agree with the parent's post that we need much more antibody testing.

nostromo 7y ago
Feel free to take it up with the Stanford researchers and the LA county health commissioner. I'm simply sharing their reports.
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  You are taking their preliminary, non-peer reviewed data and making poorly founded arguments on top of them.
- throwawayiionqz 7y ago
  I am simply trying to slow the spread of non-sensical numbers. The total population divided by number of deaths provide a factual lower bound and arguing against that is not sensible. Flaws in the Stanford study has already been highlighted extensively, see for instance https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw... and the insightful comments. The issue is not to take it up with the authors but whether the authors might listen and take back what they claimed on popular political TV shows. [1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjCitwKJSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjCitwKJSQ
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

ltbarcly3 7y ago

We also know that mortality rates have jumped up well beyond what is being reported in official covid mortality, with no other reasonable explanation apart from Covid. https://theweek.com/speedreads/910226/excess-mortality-data-suggests-many-25000-uncounted-coronavirus-deaths https://theweek.com/speedreads/910226/excess-mortality-data-... Frankly, it's just wishful thinking to cherry pick the highest estimate for the number of people who have been infected, and the lowest estimate for the number of deaths.

matwood 7y ago

The existing antibody studies have come under scrutiny for a multitude of reasons. One, the samples were not randomized. Two, the tests are not very accurate. Three, we are still unsure what level of antibodies will confer immunity if at all. Also, a raw fatality rate is useless in a vacuum. NYC has had a lot of deaths and if wasn't for the shelter in place, hospitals may have been completely overwhelmed. Fatality rate be damned. Finally, comparing COVID-19 to the seasonal flu is simply incorrect in nearly all instances. For example, the seasonal flu fatality rate is likely much lower than listed because of how many cases never get counted. In order to even think about comparing the two, we would also need proper antibody studies done for the season flu in prior years and not just either presented cases or estimates. Edit - added links to some information https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-covid-19-is-not-just-a-bad-flu/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-covid-19-is-not-just-a-b... https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-sug...

brazzy 7y ago

> All the antibody studies in the US so far are showing that antibodies are present in at least an order of magnitude greater number of people than the official number of people with Covid-19. These results may not be accurate either, though. At least some antibody tests give false positives for antibodies to other Coronavirus strains.

wonderwonder 7y ago

We still dont know if the antibodies confer any sort of short / long term immunity at all. For all we know we could get the virus, fight it off and get it again. Rinse and repeat. While all data is useful there is still so much we don't know that hampers us from putting this data to use. General lack of testing though is going to severely hamper our response to this. Overall unfortunately the federal government has failed to rise to the occasion.

ta1771 7y ago

Are we able to test for all 8 strains at once?