https://www.foxnews.com/science/third-blood-samples-massachusetts-study-coronavirus
One third?!! Not even in a hotspot!
One third?!! Not even in a hotspot!
Massachusetts study finds 33% have antibodies
14,621 Views |
70 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by slacker00
Quote:
Ambrosino called Chelsea the epicenter of the crisis in Massachusetts. Chelsea has the state's highest rate of confirmed cases, with at least 712 confirmed cases and 39 deaths an infection rate of around 2 percent
Not sure what you would call this, if not a hot spot.
With every respiratory spread virus you would expect this.JP_Losman said:
https://www.foxnews.com/science/third-blood-samples-massachusetts-study-coronavirus
One third?!! Not even in a hotspot!
Great news!
And I think it will even be higher in Texas.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
40,000 people in Chelsea
33% infected according this to study
39 deaths
That's a 0.29% case fatality rate.
33% infected according this to study
39 deaths
That's a 0.29% case fatality rate.
That's positive news. My guess is we'll see the death rate from this thing is probably really 0.5% all comers.
Would explain why Tom Hanks had it 6 weeks ago in Australia of all places. Same with Durant. Talk about a super spreader
What was official reported cases in Chelsea?
Official reported cases not relevant if there is legit antibody tests that estimate the % of population that had been infected
#of dead = population * % infected * fatality rate
Both in Chelsea and St. John Parish fatality has been about
.1 % of the population which is great news if the % infected is greater than 50%
Not great news if the % infected is under 15%
Both in Chelsea and St. John Parish fatality has been about
.1 % of the population which is great news if the % infected is greater than 50%
Not great news if the % infected is under 15%
Right just wanted to know so we can see what multiple of reported cases is.
Great news would be on our way to herd immunity!
If it is that highly contagious it seems we can't stop It and should drop mitigation as long as we are prepped w hospitals
AgStuckinLBK said:
That's positive news. My guess is we'll see the death rate from this thing is probably really 0.5% all comers.
It's been around 0.6% for several weeks, down from 1.0% from a month or more ago
This suggests a less pathogenic variant is floating around. Doesn't prove it, but that's a likely answer.
PatentMike, J.D.
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology
Disagree. Same virus, less virulent than thought. We have been driven by symptomatic cases which with respiratory viruses, is always the case.Patentmike said:
This suggests a less pathogenic variant is floating around. Doesn't prove it, but that's a likely answer.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Every single shred of evidence has pointed towards this for the last two weeks. From Iceland to Italy to Germany to the pregnant women in New York to this one.
The only reason it's only 33% is the absolute lockdown of all movement, shelters in place that have been instituted.
The only reason it's only 33% is the absolute lockdown of all movement, shelters in place that have been instituted.
Good news. Wonder what the specificity / sensitivity of their test was.
33% should slow spreading considerably correct?
If NYC is in that range doesn't that mean that any sort of major second wave is less likely ?
If NYC is in that range doesn't that mean that any sort of major second wave is less likely ?
From the company website:
This is the difficulty with antibody testing. If there is significant cross-sensitivity you won't really know who had covid-19 vs other coronaviruses. It's possible they had a rough cold run through the town over the winter and people are testing positive for those antibodies and not covid-19.
I'd be curious to know if there is some level of cross-immunity, hopefully so.
Quote:
Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.
This is the difficulty with antibody testing. If there is significant cross-sensitivity you won't really know who had covid-19 vs other coronaviruses. It's possible they had a rough cold run through the town over the winter and people are testing positive for those antibodies and not covid-19.
I'd be curious to know if there is some level of cross-immunity, hopefully so.
I can't imagine them even doing the study and posting some results if a common cold will screw up the entire thing. What would be the point. Not my field though so I know zero about this stuff
For starters people will release ( leak ) news for multiple reasons. Besides politics there is real money to be made for people with a test. It is in their interest to let everyone know they have a test and start the process of getting govt contracts.
As the scientists were designing the test they knew " false positives " from other corona viruses could be an issue. Very likely the only way to determine the impact of false positives would be to get a lot of data and cross reference. There are probably areas of Massachusetts that are similar to Chelsea but did not have a significant outbreak compare the % of positive between the two locations and a range of underlying exposure can be estimated.
Because a higher number of people exposed makes for better headlines and more clicks very likely the headline number is at the upper end of the range
The Remdasvir data from Chicago was never officially released it was leaked. Depending on personal bias Peer reviewed status is either very important or irrelevant
As the scientists were designing the test they knew " false positives " from other corona viruses could be an issue. Very likely the only way to determine the impact of false positives would be to get a lot of data and cross reference. There are probably areas of Massachusetts that are similar to Chelsea but did not have a significant outbreak compare the % of positive between the two locations and a range of underlying exposure can be estimated.
Because a higher number of people exposed makes for better headlines and more clicks very likely the headline number is at the upper end of the range
The Remdasvir data from Chicago was never officially released it was leaked. Depending on personal bias Peer reviewed status is either very important or irrelevant
Public faith in government scientists will be ruined after this event. Especially in epidemiology
I don't know if it's true or not but there is a very vocal high profile doctor out there that's been claiming if you've had a flu shot in the last 18 months you'll test positive for Covid-19
Let's be clear there is no respect for govt data. Both sides are constantly putting out data and nobody believes the other sides numbers.
Hopefully the people who designed this test can isolate that variable as they try to get more baseline data
How so?
Moxley said:
This is the difficulty with antibody testing. If there is significant cross-sensitivity you won't really know who had covid-19 vs other coronaviruses. It's possible they had a rough cold run through the town over the winter and people are testing positive for those antibodies and not covid-19.
I'd be curious to know if there is some level of cross-immunity, hopefully so.
True. It's important to know the sensitivity and specificity of the test. I read that the Abbott antibody test is really good in regards to both and validated by a third party. It's supposed to be ramping up very quickly.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/univ-washington-ramps-abbott-labs-204031796.htmlQuote:
Alex Greninger, the Virology Lab's assistant director, said his team has run about 400 blood specimens through Abbott's instruments, including samples that were stored from pre-COVID-19 blood tests. None of those old blood samples came back positive, but the test correctly identified people who were known to have had the virus.
Abbott's internal study, involving 1,200 specimens, had a sensitivity of 100% to COVID-19 antibodies, Greninger said. Just as importantly, the test achieved a 99.6% specificity, meaning that it was almost always able to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses.
Glad that somebody has what appears to be a very good test,
The Chelsea test still waiting on FDA approval and is not the Abbott test
The Chelsea test still waiting on FDA approval and is not the Abbott test
So the west coast and the east coast studies this week showed similar data of around 33 percent of those tested being positive? Seems like really good news.
"It may not be perfect protection," he said. "It might be possible to get infected again, but if you did, you wouldn't end up in a hospital, OK? You might feel a little off, but then those antibodies pop right back up, take care of it, and you're better. So you get infected, but it doesn't really matter. It's more like a regular cold. That's a very possible outcome."
that's great news as well!
that's great news as well!
3 people in my immediate family have been tested, all had flu shots this year and all tested negative.
Alta said:
3 people in my immediate family have been tested, all had flu shots this year and all tested negative.
Just to be clear, they had the PCR test or an antibody test?
From the article:
It's amazing to me that so many, even in positions of leadership against the virus, miss the ball so frequently.
If the results bore out, it wouldn't be sobering news, it'd be great news. Just like the Stanford study in that regard.
I don't know how someone couldn't understand that, let alone someone in a relevant profession.
Quote:
He added: "Still, it's kind of sobering that 30 percent of a random group of 200 people that are showing no symptoms are, in fact, infected. It's all the more reason for everyone to be practicing physical distancing."
It's amazing to me that so many, even in positions of leadership against the virus, miss the ball so frequently.
If the results bore out, it wouldn't be sobering news, it'd be great news. Just like the Stanford study in that regard.
I don't know how someone couldn't understand that, let alone someone in a relevant profession.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
23,249
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Everyone just ignoring this possibility and acting like every single person who tested positive for antibodies ONLY had Covid-19 antibodies, not any other corona virus out there.Moxley said:
From the company website:Quote:
Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.
This is the difficulty with antibody testing. If there is significant cross-sensitivity you won't really know who had covid-19 vs other coronaviruses. It's possible they had a rough cold run through the town over the winter and people are testing positive for those antibodies and not covid-19.
I'd be curious to know if there is some level of cross-immunity, hopefully so.
Are many antibody tests able to SPECIFICALLY detect Covid-19 antibodies only?
Yes, there are a few that have released data showing their efficacy and seem to be reliable.
The problem is once the FDA greenlit the EUA a whole bunch of other companies have flooded the market. There are apparently over 70 different fingerstick antibody tests on the market right now, many of which are coming from China. There are some hospital systems in the United States who are using tests manufactured in China. I'm concerned about those in particular being quite unreliable.
The problem is once the FDA greenlit the EUA a whole bunch of other companies have flooded the market. There are apparently over 70 different fingerstick antibody tests on the market right now, many of which are coming from China. There are some hospital systems in the United States who are using tests manufactured in China. I'm concerned about those in particular being quite unreliable.
Featured Stories
See All
36:20
10h ago
2.9k
Expect dramatics: A&M hoops heads back to OKC in March
by Olin Buchanan
Aggies outlast LSU as Perez stays hot in 3-2 win
by Kayla Gaither