3 ms·
No, it's only in the province of Bergamo and there is selection bias because people that chose to take the test presumably has symptoms before. As a counter-an
by bonzini 6y ago
No, it's only in the province of Bergamo and there is selection bias because people that chose to take the test presumably has symptoms before.
As a counter-anecdote, I know two people from a less hit area, both of whom had fever, and none of them had any antibodies (like, the test said 0.0 for both IgM and IgG).
- scotty79 6y agoTrue. Just Bergamo. Which changes nothing in my argument. But there's a claim that results were from sufficiently large and random sample: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejakartapost.com/amp/news/2020/06/09/over-half-of-people-tested-in-italys-bergamo-have-covid-19-antibodies.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejakartapost.com/amp/news... If that's true then my argument still holds. How can 80% not get antibodies if they were detected in 57% of large random sample of some population?
- bonzini 6y ago> How can 80% not get antibodies if they were detected in 57% of large random sample of some population? I agree with that part, even if the sample was not random.
- scotty79 6y agoI think randomness matters. If it was not random, but heavily skewed towards more symptomatic cases it might have been showing more people having antibodies because heavier symptoms could correlate with strength of immune response and more antibodies.
- gizmo 6y agoBecause of dosage. If you are exposed to a small amount of viral mass your natural immune system can deal with it before the virus has multiplied to the point where you get sick. If you're confined to a small space where the virus is prevalent you're getting a big dose and your immune system has to kick into high gear and produce antibodies.