3 ms·
Worth noting the limitations listed at the bottom. > The accuracy of antibody testing varies widely. Moreover, most antibody tests were done for people seeking
by mayneack 6y ago
Worth noting the limitations listed at the bottom.
> The accuracy of antibody testing varies widely. Moreover, most antibody tests were done for people seeking them out, which means that those who got tested are a self-selecting group and not a random sample.
> It also appears that New Yorkers in some neighborhoods with lower infection rates were more likely to seek antibody testing.
> In some wealthy and largely white ZIP codes in Manhattan, some 30 percent of people may have gotten an antibody test. But in Corona, for instance, where the positive rate was highest, less than a quarter of people got tested.
- sandworm101 6y ago30% and "less than a quarter" ... that actually seems rather homogenous. Variations in testing of 10-15% across very different neighborhoods seems rather reasonable. Given the disparity in impact that a positive test means to one's working life, I was expecting something more like 1% and 30%.
- nerdponx 6y agoIt's a bit more interesting when you consider the disparity in infection rates. The people most likely to get it were less likely to get tested for it. The reality is probably just that these people didn't have damn time or energy to go to a testing center for a blood draw, or were already concerned about spending so much time in public and didn't want to travel more than they needed to. Being working-class in NYC is hard nowadays due to the very long commutes (caused in turn by people fleeing excessively high rental prices).