Patentmike said:

---

Thought it might be a good idea for a thread to discuss the possible reason why the antibody tests are showing so much higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection than predicted from the PCR testing that has been done. These points have been discussed in threads about specific studies done, such as by Stanford, USC and others, but having them in one place may be helpful.

The hope is that this thread remains about the science.

So, why do the the antibody studies suggest an 8x to 50x higher incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than predicted from RT-PCR and/or symptom based diagnosis of COVID-19? Possibilities:

• Missed cases--we know the RT-PCR has a somewhat narrow time window in which it is reliable and missed cases are at least part of the difference.
• The virus is simply far less pathogenic than we thought. Everyone getting sick has a comorbidity of some type, even if it isn't recognized. Within this we can include the virus is really bad only if you get infected with by a large initial dose--think packed NY Subway car with an infected person breathing/coughing in the middle of the crowd. This has some legs as AggieHawg will tell you.
• There is a less virulent variant of SARS-CoV-2 that is competing with the nasty version. See https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.31.015941v1 for ideas of what this might look like. The insertion to create furin cleavage site creates a vulnerability to ZAP protein because of three CpG dinucleotides coding the site.
• Cross reactivity of antibodies for a different coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2. I read the blurb for the USC study on the USC website. The researchers there did controls to address this possibility. We cannot rule this out until we see their data and not just the conclusions. (BallerStaff referenced this study in a post that is worth a read).
• Non-random study participants (the cohort). If the study participants are not selected correctly, then the cohort is not representative of the overall population (similar to doing political polls, your results are affected by the people questioned/studied).

My thoughts for the day. I have been hopeful of a less virulent variant from the beginning and I am biased towards hoping that's the right one. Anyone, add on any scientific explanations I might have missed or add sources to support what you think is happening.

---

• The virus is simply far less pathogenic than we thought. Everyone getting sick has a comorbidity of some type, even if it isn't recognized. Within this we can include the virus is really bad only if you get infected with by a large initial dose--think packed NY Subway car with an infected person breathing/coughing in the middle of the crowd. This has some legs as AggieHawg will tell you.

Quote:

---

That's why these sorts of tests are difficult when the prevalence of a disease is so low. That's alsi why in yesterday's press conference Dr Birx recommended testing healthcare workers because their rate of exposure is much higher. You would likely see a much more accurate picture of a symptomatic vs. asymptomatic cases.

---

cone said:

---

i hate that guy's face

---