Miami-Dade Antibody Test Results

5,763 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by DadHammer
Snap E Tom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:51p, 4/24/20
Press release:

https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2020-04-24-sample-testing-results.asp

One of the top hotspots in the US.

1800 people tested so far. Probably the most random in choosing subjects out of all tests. 6% positive in both phases. "we are 95% certain that the true amount of infection lies between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population"

This puts the IFR at under 0.2%.
Reply Quote
25
1 edit
Squadron7
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Snap E Tom • 4:01p, 4/24/20
AG
Snap E Tom said:
Press release:

https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2020-04-24-sample-testing-results.asp

One of the top hotspots in the US.

1800 people tested so far. Probably the most random in choosing subjects out of all tests. 6% positive in both phases. "we are 95% certain that the true amount of infection lies between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population"

This puts the IFR at under 0.2%.

Good news!

Ban user. Delete thread.
Reply Quote
34
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:19p, 4/24/20
AG
These studies are all telling the same story.

The true IFR is well below 1%. And looks to be below 0.5%.

Possibly even lower. If this study is right, the upper bound for IFR is 0.25% in a major metro where hospitals weren't overwhelmed.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:40p, 4/24/20
62% false positive ratio.

EDIT: I expect K2 to swing through and check the math shortly.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
jamey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30p, 4/24/20
AG
flu is 0.1
Initially covid19 was thought to be 1.0 or 10X. Several weeks ago I saw it reduced to 0.6 and they hinted it was probably a little below that.

It wouldn't be surprising if it turns out to between 0.3 to 0.5.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
TheAngelFlight
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55p, 4/24/20
The crying about what someone might say in the future got old before it even started...
Reply Quote
8
74Ag1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JP_Losman • 10:01p, 4/24/20
AG
JP_Losman said:
In before corona bros declare its meaningless data and no hope sorry

Who are the Corona Bros?
Reply Quote
TheAngelFlight
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:08p, 4/24/20
Quote:
Possibly even lower. If this study is right, the upper bound for IFR is 0.25% in a major metro where hospitals weren't overwhelmed.
The bold is going to get lost, willingly and unwillingly, in all the arguing about rates. Important to try to keep this in mind.

Rockland, NY has already lost 0.103% of its population. If you take their 11.7% infected rate in the New York test as the truth, they'd easily triple this "upper bound" on the current trajectory.

NYC has already lost 0.132% of its population, more than halfway to this possible "upper bound. " If you take their 20% infected number as the truth, they'd more than double this upper bound.


And, of course, some folks have been keen to say the NYC area didn't really get overwhelmed.
Reply Quote
6
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:09p, 4/24/20
AG
What's the math to check?

I imagine they did it right. 6% is a good number. That's great news.
Reply Quote
1
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheAngelFlight • 10:10p, 4/24/20
AG
given the size of the supposed spread, NYC handled the overall loss pretty well considering

very lucky if the hospitalization is really only ~5%
Reply Quote
BuddysBud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 74Ag1 • 10:12p, 4/24/20
AG
74Ag1 said:
JP_Losman said:
In before corona bros declare its meaningless data and no hope sorry

Who are the Corona Bros?


A couple guys that hang out on the beach in Mexico drinking a refreshing malt beverage
Reply Quote
3
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14p, 4/24/20
AG
I honestly think that's the most heartening news out of these sero results

hospitalization rate is much lower than anticipated

things can be opened up without general fear of HC resource depletion

still a bad bug but it isn't a 1 in 5 shot to require oxygen, especially if you're young and not obese
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
AgResearch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jamey • 10:16p, 4/24/20
AG
jamey said:
flu is 0.1 <=== With fairly high vaccination rate
It wouldn't be surprising if it turns out to between 0.3 to 0.5. <=== With no vaccine
Interesting isn't it...
Reply Quote
6
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 10:18p, 4/24/20
AG
ETFan said:
62% false positive ratio.

EDIT: I expect K2 to swing through and check the math shortly.

Where are you seeing the false positive? Press release mentioned they controlled for specificity / sensitivity but doesn't say what they were.

And for this kind of test, if the specificity is (few false negatives) a low sensitivity actually means there are more out there than what you measure. NY mentioned I think that they aimed for a high specificity test for this reason, which makes sense I think.

Also for what it's worth the higher a raw number they find the more trustworthy it is. For NY city, 20% means it's probably very reliable, and those numbers seem reasonable.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgResearch • 10:32p, 4/24/20
AG
AgResearch said:
jamey said:
flu is 0.1 <=== With fairly high vaccination rate
It wouldn't be surprising if it turns out to between 0.3 to 0.5. <=== With no vaccine
Interesting isn't it...
Not really.....we don't have a vaccine.

Everyone agrees no problem when you have an effective vaccine out there across the country.
Reply Quote
2
SirLurksALot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 74Ag1 • 10:40p, 4/24/20
74Ag1 said:
JP_Losman said:
In before corona bros declare its meaningless data and no hope sorry

Who are the Corona Bros?


It's gonna be the most popular Halloween costume this year. Just wear your most middle aged suburbanite outfit and add a homemade mask, eye protection, and gloves. Then go tell everyone you meet they suck at math and they're going to die.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
jamey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgResearch • 10:40p, 4/24/20
AG
AgResearch said:
jamey said:
flu is 0.1 <=== With fairly high vaccination rate
It wouldn't be surprising if it turns out to between 0.3 to 0.5. <=== With no vaccine
Interesting isn't it...


flu vaccine is always uncertain. It's not like it's irradiated
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Old Buffalo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JP_Losman • 10:40p, 4/24/20
AG
JP_Losman said:
In before corona bros declare its meaningless data and no hope sorry


Careful. Corona bros is soon gonna be a banned term on this site.
Reply Quote
1
ham98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SirLurksALot • 10:40p, 4/24/20
SirLurksALot said:
74Ag1 said:
JP_Losman said:
In before corona bros declare its meaningless data and no hope sorry

Who are the Corona Bros?


It's gonna be the most popular Halloween costume this year. Just wear your most middle aged suburbanite outfit and add a homemade mask, eye protection, and gloves. Then go tell everyone you meet they suck at math and are going to die.
You forgot the wife named Karen
Reply Quote
1
BuddysBud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 10:41p, 4/24/20
AG
We have only had a flu vaccine for a few decades. The country wasn't shut down every year for the flu before the vaccine was developed.
Reply Quote
10
1 edit
jamey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:06p, 4/24/20
AG
Still applies and oranges as a virus with very different R0 values
Reply Quote
2
BuddysBud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jamey • 12:16a, 4/25/20
AG
jamey said:
Still applies and oranges as a virus with very different R0 values


It looks like the results of these antibody tests are showing that the R0 isn't much different than the flu prior to introducing the vaccine. It might not be as apples to oranges as you keep saying. Is the R0 so bad that is has been worth worth destroying so many people's lives?
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BuddysBud • 12:30a, 4/25/20
AG
Nah big. Flu R0 is around 1.3 or 1.4. This is 2.5 or so, maybe over 3 when people were unaware.
Reply Quote
1
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BuddysBud • 12:33a, 4/25/20
AG
it's a bad bug, but these antibody tests are showing a path forward if they're accurate
Reply Quote
2
jamey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BuddysBud • 12:36a, 4/25/20
AG
If anything the antibody tests are making R0 look worse. There's more people infected than we thought with shelter in place


That said, theres isnt a good antibody test that's widely available yet so we'll have to see
Reply Quote
BuddysBud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:47a, 4/25/20
AG
I was mixing up R0 and mortality. If NYC has had 2,000,000 infected but only 150,000 showing symptoms, it is not as bad for most as the hype. However it is a very bad bug for some people.
Reply Quote
1
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:48a, 4/25/20
AG
The flu vaccine has been around since World War II, entered civilian use after tests/use on soliders during the war. Although, yes, its consistent, widespread use is certainly a much newer development.

Really, its only been in the last 10-15 years that more than a 1/3rd of the population started receiving it. We've more steadily approached 50% of the population over the last 5 years. (And, as we all know, its an imperfect vaccine.)

That said, the conversation would be more productive if you could give more specifics about what "pre-vaccine" years you're referring to.
Reply Quote
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:01a, 4/25/20
AG
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

hospitalization rate under 50 is half the total rate per 100k people

so a 3% hospitalization rate across full cohort would indicate 1.5% for <50

10% hospitalized under 50 died in NYC

so a 0.15% IFR under 50, with 80%+ having comorbities

so for the nominally healthy, that's a 0.03% IFR without a good therapeutic

3 out of 10000 dead
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
jamey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05a, 4/25/20
AG
Hopefully any vaccine from this is better than the flu. Some years the flu vaccine has little impact.

I have not heard much about this thing mutating like we know happens with the flu. Hopefully not
Reply Quote
1 edit
JP_Losman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:37a, 4/25/20
AG
Does this new data help give a timeline for herd immunity?
What about making any revisions to Ro?
Reply Quote
permabull
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgResearch • 8:46a, 4/25/20
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiegolfer03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:48a, 4/25/20
AG
is anything being done to try to prevent folks with confirmed "mild" cases from ending up in the hospital?

"Go home and good luck" doesn't seem adequate when we know if patients end up at the hospital they're likely to be in serious trouble even if they get released.
Reply Quote
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 12:46p, 4/25/20
k2aggie07 said:
ETFan said:
62% false positive ratio.

EDIT: I expect K2 to swing through and check the math shortly.

Where are you seeing the false positive? Press release mentioned they controlled for specificity / sensitivity but doesn't say what they were.

And for this kind of test, if the specificity is (few false negatives) a low sensitivity actually means there are more out there than what you measure. NY mentioned I think that they aimed for a high specificity test for this reason, which makes sense I think.

Also for what it's worth the higher a raw number they find the more trustworthy it is. For NY city, 20% means it's probably very reliable, and those numbers seem reasonable.
https://www.oxfordbiosystems.com/COVID-19-Rapid-test

I believe that's the test, plugged in to a calc with 6% prevalence, 88.66% sensitivity, 90.63% specificity -> 62% false positive.

https://covidtestingproject.org/

The results of that show it having even worse specificity.
Reply Quote
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 12:50p, 4/25/20
AG
More like this probably.

How sensitive and specific is this screen?

This screen detects two different antibodies: IgG and IgM. IgG is extremely sensitive and specific (96.1-100% and 98.1-100% respectively). IgM is slightly less sensitive at 83.8-95.6%, but very specific at 97.7-99.8%. It is also worth noting that this screen has no cross-reactivity with several other known viruses, such as Influenza A and B, HIV, hepatitis B and others.
Reply Quote
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 12:55p, 4/25/20
AG
that false positive would put it closer to 0.8% IFR, which is in line with most other sero studies and estimates

I would just assume 1% from here on, but use that to back calculate hospitalization rate
Reply Quote
1
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.