4 ms·

Yes but it wasn't about a virus, this was about control. https://mobile.twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1263662455219240962 https://mobile.twitter.com/Ethica

Yes but it wasn't about a virus, this was about control. https://mobile.twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1263662455219240962 https://mobile.twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/12636624552...

epakai 6y ago
I tried to understand where these numbers were coming from. The 32,768,000 cases led me to seroprevalence studies (total infection estimates by sampling the population for antibodies). I think this wired article [1] really covers the signifigance of these results. Some of the issues are the results are not nationwide (Santa Clara County only), the studies weren't peer reviewed before the twitter analysis happened, there may be issues with testing method accuracy, etc. In any case these are fairly new results (April 11). Our decisions about lockdown were based on data available at the time which had a worse outlook in part due to lack of early action. I think it's also important to point out the CDC's planning scenarios state "sCFR: ... reflects existing standard of care". I presume this means our current ability, not our ability a month ago when fatalities peaked. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-resu...
- elcritch 6y ago
  > I think this wired article [1] really covers the signifigance of these results. Some of the issues are the results are not nationwide (Santa Clara County only), the studies weren't peer reviewed before the twitter analysis happened, there may be issues with testing method accuracy, etc. For future consideration by others, while the Stanford paper was pre-peer review the deluge of Twitter and media articles denouncing the results based on those limitations is as bad or worse than the drawbacks of the original research. Given that multiple papers from groups around the world have produced similar or more drastic results from serological testing, it seems most likely the Stanford researchers were more correct than wrong and the Twitter crowd (included many scientists) were more incorrect. The wisdom of the crowds is not always that wise. It was largely people disagreeing with the Stanford results for various non-scientific reasons using the limitations as a way to invalidate the entirety of the results rather than understand that the issues would most probably only affect the range of the results but even accounting for that still indicated order of magnitude lower infection fatality rate than assumed from the known case rate at the time. The same reasoning should apply to the early research from Imperial College that had (IMHO) even more serious limitations, but even their results weren't completely invalidated and the current numbers are still within their estimated ranges. Similar logical failures happened when the WHO stated that there wasn't evidence that getting infected would result in immunity. While technically true and worth investigating, taking it as a justification to extend lockdown or denounce states planning to reopen was unfounded given the paucity of data showing people don't develop some degree of resistance to sars-cov-2 virus after infection. Given there are few viruses that can elude the immune system and prevent immunity, the prior knowledge by itself strongly indicates some level of immunity will be formed. None of the traits of a lingering viral infections were there, aside from a few anomalous results from Wuhan or South Korea. Luckily, later research showed those possible cases of relapse were due to false positives, but it was also a highly likely outcome based on the known of prior information about viruses and the immune system.

Yes but it wasn't about a virus, this was about control. https://mobile.twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1263662455219240962 https://mobile.twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/12636624552...

epakai 6y ago

I tried to understand where these numbers were coming from. The 32,768,000 cases led me to seroprevalence studies (total infection estimates by sampling the population for antibodies). I think this wired article [1] really covers the signifigance of these results. Some of the issues are the results are not nationwide (Santa Clara County only), the studies weren't peer reviewed before the twitter analysis happened, there may be issues with testing method accuracy, etc. In any case these are fairly new results (April 11). Our decisions about lockdown were based on data available at the time which had a worse outlook in part due to lack of early action. I think it's also important to point out the CDC's planning scenarios state "sCFR: ... reflects existing standard of care". I presume this means our current ability, not our ability a month ago when fatalities peaked. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-resu...

elcritch 6y ago
> I think this wired article [1] really covers the signifigance of these results. Some of the issues are the results are not nationwide (Santa Clara County only), the studies weren't peer reviewed before the twitter analysis happened, there may be issues with testing method accuracy, etc. For future consideration by others, while the Stanford paper was pre-peer review the deluge of Twitter and media articles denouncing the results based on those limitations is as bad or worse than the drawbacks of the original research. Given that multiple papers from groups around the world have produced similar or more drastic results from serological testing, it seems most likely the Stanford researchers were more correct than wrong and the Twitter crowd (included many scientists) were more incorrect. The wisdom of the crowds is not always that wise. It was largely people disagreeing with the Stanford results for various non-scientific reasons using the limitations as a way to invalidate the entirety of the results rather than understand that the issues would most probably only affect the range of the results but even accounting for that still indicated order of magnitude lower infection fatality rate than assumed from the known case rate at the time. The same reasoning should apply to the early research from Imperial College that had (IMHO) even more serious limitations, but even their results weren't completely invalidated and the current numbers are still within their estimated ranges. Similar logical failures happened when the WHO stated that there wasn't evidence that getting infected would result in immunity. While technically true and worth investigating, taking it as a justification to extend lockdown or denounce states planning to reopen was unfounded given the paucity of data showing people don't develop some degree of resistance to sars-cov-2 virus after infection. Given there are few viruses that can elude the immune system and prevent immunity, the prior knowledge by itself strongly indicates some level of immunity will be formed. None of the traits of a lingering viral infections were there, aside from a few anomalous results from Wuhan or South Korea. Luckily, later research showed those possible cases of relapse were due to false positives, but it was also a highly likely outcome based on the known of prior information about viruses and the immune system.