3 ms·

What about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti...

by nicc 6y ago

What about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti... Also, you picked 5%, but in your article they also say it's almost 15% in some areas. You're not spreading lies now, right?

mattmanser 6y ago
I also wonder how effective these anti body tests are, and their false negative rate. In actual trials, has a single one actually been shown to work reliably? Here in the UK there's a new story every week about how yet another antibody test has been withdrawn or rejected by PHE because it wasn't accurate.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  Most studies I've seen did their own validation because of this. Of course this doesn't mean the tests were accurate (or not).
raverbashing 6y ago
Since when 1 in 5 means 90% now? > Also, you picked 5% You mean, the actual title of the article and the average of the whole country? > Antibody study shows just 5% of Spaniards have contracted the coronavirus
arcturus17 6y ago
Your original point was: > From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. Well, no, from what we know, 5% of the population in Spain - one of the hardest-hit countries in the world, I might add - had it. Whether the seroprevalence is up to 15% in some areas is of no consequence to your original point.
rumanator 6y ago
> What about this: What? 1 in 5 in a city is quite far from 90%, isn't it? If you spew the "90% might have it" bullshit claim when you were fully aware that at best you know of a city which might have 20% then it looks like you are intentionally and knowingly spreading lies and false information. Don't do that. > Also, you picked 5%, but in your article they also say it's almost 15% in some areas. You're not spreading lies now, right? We were making global claims about how 90% might already contracted covid19. I presented a country-wide study, which as of today is the best and most extensive one done at a country-level. The study points out a 5% infection rate in one of the countries which so far has been hit the hardest. Do you have a problem with that study? Moreover, the hotspot you cherry-picked refer to specific cities and municipalities. Soria, For example, barely has a population of 90k. Madrid comes second with 11%, which is 6% higher than the national average and still lower than 90%. So even your cherry picking doesn't deflect the fact that your claim that 90% might have it is clearly bullshit and that you are knowingly and intentionally lying and spreading false information.

by nicc 6y ago

mattmanser 6y ago

I also wonder how effective these anti body tests are, and their false negative rate. In actual trials, has a single one actually been shown to work reliably? Here in the UK there's a new story every week about how yet another antibody test has been withdrawn or rejected by PHE because it wasn't accurate.

lbeltrame 6y ago
Most studies I've seen did their own validation because of this. Of course this doesn't mean the tests were accurate (or not).

raverbashing 6y ago

Since when 1 in 5 means 90% now? > Also, you picked 5% You mean, the actual title of the article and the average of the whole country? > Antibody study shows just 5% of Spaniards have contracted the coronavirus

arcturus17 6y ago

Your original point was: > From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. Well, no, from what we know, 5% of the population in Spain - one of the hardest-hit countries in the world, I might add - had it. Whether the seroprevalence is up to 15% in some areas is of no consequence to your original point.

rumanator 6y ago

> What about this: What? 1 in 5 in a city is quite far from 90%, isn't it? If you spew the "90% might have it" bullshit claim when you were fully aware that at best you know of a city which might have 20% then it looks like you are intentionally and knowingly spreading lies and false information. Don't do that. > Also, you picked 5%, but in your article they also say it's almost 15% in some areas. You're not spreading lies now, right? We were making global claims about how 90% might already contracted covid19. I presented a country-wide study, which as of today is the best and most extensive one done at a country-level. The study points out a 5% infection rate in one of the countries which so far has been hit the hardest. Do you have a problem with that study? Moreover, the hotspot you cherry-picked refer to specific cities and municipalities. Soria, For example, barely has a population of 90k. Madrid comes second with 11%, which is 6% higher than the national average and still lower than 90%. So even your cherry picking doesn't deflect the fact that your claim that 90% might have it is clearly bullshit and that you are knowingly and intentionally lying and spreading false information.