CDC has all of this data and even more. They disagree with you. Best estimate is 0.25% and look for it to get lower. Tough luck, you are wrong.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
CDC says antibody tests could be wrong up to half the time.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/health/antibody-tests-cdc-coronavirus-wrong/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/health/antibody-tests-cdc-coronavirus-wrong/index.html
The great news is that with better hygiene, masks, testing, contact tracing, better treatments, experienced medical professionals, stocked PPE, and more ventilators that the likelihood of a second wave overwhelming any hospital system in the USA is becoming only a remote possibility.
I agree we will be much better prepared for a second wave.
But if we go back to large gatherings like sports, or subways, or big churches, or if we see more scenes like we saw from this weekend in bars and pool parties jammed with maskless people, then I think hospitals will be heavily stressed again.
Last edited:
As has been noted numerous times, and you yourself have acknowledged, the graph which lists fatalities is not up to date. The delayed allocation of fatalities to a specific day gives the impression of a continual down ward trend. Do they intentionally do this to give that impression? More then a few signs point to that being the case.Great news continues to come from FL:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429
Deaths trending down and % positive tests plummet to only 2.27%. Exciting to watch how a state can balance opening up and staying safe. Well done!
People will largely social distance by themselves. I can’t imagine subways, buses and planes will be at max capacities for a while. Most indoor locations will likely have some sort of max capacity restrictions.
The pool parties over did it. But if it’s 80 degrees and relatively humid I’d be extremely surprised if anything comes out of an outside environment like that. Put that scene inside and I entirety agree that will become a problem at some point. Like New Orleans. But if a SSE happens from something like that and there is a video like that, all those parties will largely be stopped on their own via peer pressure.
Unreal. Might as well throw out those NYC numbers then. We’ll never have reliable data at this rate.
Problem is, we would still be cutting off a large segment of the economy. Sports, concerts, bars, amusement parks, these places need a lot of people in a relatively small space to be successful.
Then you add in schools, and churches, and weddings.
I agree we will limit gatherings more then normal, and that will help limit the spread, and there are all those other measures you mention which will help limit the spread as well as help us cope with the uptick in cases, but I still think hospitals will be under heavy stress again come late fall and next winter.
You have a point with your first sentence.
But the second? Just because we don't have good tests a couple months in doesn't mean we won't have good tests a couple more months in.
Agree on the first part but the outdoor part is wrong. Transmission from person to person is, by far, the primary infection pathway and if people are in close proximity, like at a concert or social event or anything else, transmission rates will be just as high outdoors as indoors. UV radiation from simulated sun takes ~7 minutes to deactivate the virus and it takes about 2-3 seconds for virus-laden droplets from coughs, sneezes and even loud talking/singing to reach someone <3 feet away and infections will occur in those situations without masks or social distancing. Also, remember a large part of Mardi Gras takes place outdoors.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ocial-distancing.191275/page-127#post-4573156
As I said last night, even if CDC's numbers were correct (and they're very unlikely to be with most experts already disagreeing with them as per the linked article - almost all agree with my viewpoint that the IFR will likely end up between 0.5-1.0%), that's still 520K total US deaths eventually, if we have no cure/vaccine and stop interventions, allowing herd immunity to take its course, as many seem to want to do.
Is that your position or do you think we should continue with wearing masks (I know you've said you wear one) and practicing social distancing and continuing to invest in testing/tracing/isolating to reduce and control inevitable flare-ups?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...mates-for-severity-of-covid-19-are-optimistic
I think it's safe to say it won't be passed via chlorinated pool water.
But in the air above and around the pool water? Seems pretty possible.
Antibody tests should absolutely not be used for an individual decision based on purported immunity from the test, since false positives will be moderately high where seroprevalence is low, as it is in 95% of the US (which likely has a 2-5% infection rate). However for NYC/NJ, where seroprevalence is higher, the errors come way down. Covered all this in the post below from 5/5; if folks don't want to wade through it all, see the 2nd link below, which has a very cool "what if" calculator for such tests. Supposedly the new Roche/Abbott tests that came out a few weeks ago have ~100% sensitivity and 99.6-99.8% specificity, which greatly reduces false positives, even if prevalence is below 5%.
For example if antibody prevalence is ~20% and the test has 95% sensitivity/95% specificity (NY never shared their test accuracy that I know of, but these were the kinds of tests available in late April when they did the testing), then the chances of a positive result being correct are about 82% (good for population testing; iffy for an individual decision) and the chances of a negative result being correct are about 99%, which is very good. Change the seroprevalence to 5% and the accuracy is much worse: with the same test, the chances of a positive antibody test being correct are 47% and the chances of a negative antibody test being correct are 99.6% - this is where the "half the time" comment comes from.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-97#post-4543219
https://qz.com/1848674/how-to-interpret-the-specificity-sensitivity-of-antibody-tests/
https://diagnostics.roche.com/us/en...more-than-20-initial-lab-sites-in-the-us.html
None, but surfaces are a tiny route of transmission...
I dunno I feel like shaking hands, touching doorknobs and then touching your face/mouth is a fairly large rate of transmission.
My position is that CDC is now saying the fatality rate is 0.25% and likely going lower. Anything else you mentioned in your post is just to muddy up the fact that you are wrong about the rate and have been for a long time.
:)
You can think whatever you want.....but that doesn't mean it is true.
#datarulestheday
Well, since I've been right on most of this and you've been wrong on just about all of it, it's not a surprise that you're aligning with the wrong side again. At 0.25% IFR it's 500K dead, at 0.5% IFR it's 1MM dead and at 1.0% IFR it's 2MM dead. All of those scenarios suck and all deserve serious leadership and interventions to greatly reduce those numbers until we have a cure/vaccine. I've said many times what I would do, but I'll ask again, what would you do?
he says cdc right but then says still subtract another .15 from the IFR. He is a troll.
He is certainly a troll, but he's right on the CDC, but doesn't explain it, because he's also very lazy. Basically, they're now reporting a most likely "symptomatic" IFR of 0.4% and then multiplying that by 0.65 to get 0.25% actual IFR, because they're assuming 65% of infected patients are symptomatic and 35% are asymptomatic - this is analogous to how they report the flu.
I have no issue with that, per se, but nobody has any clue how many symptomatic people there are - they know case rates, where confirmed viral PCR tests were obtained, but many with symptoms never get tested, so positive cases is usually a strong function of testing per capita. As we start to get more seroprevalence data (CDC is launching a nationwide effort for 25 major cities), we can then get the "true" IFR for all infections as those with antibodies were infected, whether symptomatic or not.
And as I've stated multiple times the true IFR, right now, for the two largest areas that have done antibody testing, is 1.0-1.2% in NY/Spain, so expecting that to be 0.25% eventually is a pipe dream, short of some huge unknown factor, like the antibody tests being way off or "natural immunity" being much greater than is now known (small but non-zero possibility due to the cross-reactivity I've mentioned) or NY/Spain having abnormally high death rates. What's more likely is that the meta analysis I linked earlier, estimating an IFR of 0.75%, will be correct, which is right in the middle of my 0.5-1.0% estimate.
More on the plethora of vaccine candidates being developed, including some explanation of the type of vaccine, data to date, status (animal testing vs. human testing), company, etc. Really nice summary and there are at least 100 more, in addition to the 12 or so discussed.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/26/coronavirus-vaccine-update-may-26
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/26/coronavirus-vaccine-update-may-26
The Abbott and Roche tests are supposedly very accurate and both require a blood draw at a lab. Is this failure rate for the finger prick tests and are these the tests that cities are using to determine the # with antibodies in their populations?
Yea I remember that that's why I was kind of surprised. The article doesn't really get into those tests though sounds just like an overall assessment. It seems like the veracity is related more to the prevalence of the virus in a community. The higher the suspected prevalence the more likely the results are to be true, the lower the prevalence the less likely and a second follow up test should be done to verify. Notice the part I bolded in the snippet from the article. @RU848789 I think pointed this out as well.
From the article:
Antibody tests used to determine if people have been infected in the past with Covid-19 might be wrong up to half the time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in new guidance posted on its website.
Antibody tests, often called serologic tests, look for evidence of an immune response to infection. "Antibodies in some persons can be detected within the first week of illness onset," the CDC says.
They are not accurate enough to use to make important policy decisions, the CDC said.
"Serologic test results should not be used to make decisions about grouping persons residing in or being admitted to congregate settings, such as schools, dormitories, or correctional facilities," the CDC says.
Serologic test results should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace."
Health officials or health care providers who are using antibody tests need to use the most accurate test they can find and might need to test people twice, the CDC said in the new guidance.
"In most of the country, including areas that have been heavily impacted, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody is expected to be low, ranging from less than 5% to 25%, so that testing at this point might result in relatively more false positive results and fewer false-negative results," the CDC said.
The higher the sensitivity, the fewer false negatives a test will give. The higher the specificity, the fewer false positives. Across populations, tests give more accurate results if the disease being tested for is common in the population. If an infection has only affected a small percentage of people being tested, even a very small margin of error in a test will be magnified.
If just 5% of the population being tested has the virus, a test with more than 90% accuracy can still miss half the cases.
It's a point that's been made frequently in recent weeks by public health experts, but the CDC spells out the problem in the new advice on antibody testing.
Snippet from CDC guidelines.
Test performance
The utility of tests depends on the sensitivity and specificity of the assays; these performance characteristics are determined by using a defined set of negative and positive samples. In addition, the predictive values of a test should be considered because these values affect the overall outcome of testing. Positive predictive value is the probability that individuals with positive test results are truly antibody positive. Negative predictive value is the probability that individuals with negative test results are truly antibody negative. Positive and negative predictive values are determined by the percentage of truly antibody positive individuals in the tested population (prevalence, pre-test probability) and the sensitivity and specificity of the test. For example:
- In a high-prevalence setting, the positive predictive value increases — meaning it is more likely that persons who test positive are truly antibody positive – than if the test is performed in a population with low-prevalence. When a test is used in a population where prevalence is low, the positive predictive value drops because there are more false-positive results, since the pre-test probability is low.
- Likewise, negative predictive value is also affected by prevalence. In a high-prevalence setting, the negative predictive value declines whereas in a low-prevalence setting, it increases.
In some settings, such as COVID-19 outbreaks in food processing plants and congregate living facilities, the prevalence of infection in the population may be significantly higher. In such settings, serologic testing at appropriate intervals following outbreaks might result in relatively fewer false positive results and more false-negative results.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html
Funny stuff. The CDC says you are wrong. Feel free to root for the higher number, but the data doesn't support it.
Death rate is falling dramatically. Click on link for numbers. Treatments, new meds dropping rates to lowest rates since charting.
Check out the graph on attached link. We are headed in the right direction fast. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
It’s just frustrating that with seemingly every supposed breakthrough with the virus comes a retraction a few weeks later
Chairman of the Recovery Trial, the world's largest study of HCQ, had this to say about the Lancet study that led to WHO suspending trial:
https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/professional-downloads/2020_05_24-recovery-dmc-letter_.pdf
In the light of the response by MHRA to my letter, I arranged an urgent re- review by the full committee of the safety and efficacy data that were available by 12.22hrs on the 23rd May, for the 10,680 patients randomised.
The Committee reviewed the external evidence from the non-randomised observational study (Mehra et al. Lancet May 22nd 2020) and the evidence from the RECOVERY trial on the effects of hydroxychloroquine on mortality among patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.
We saw no cogent reason to suspend recruitment for safety reasons. In particular, we noted that the hazard ratio for 28-day mortality (our primary outcome) in the current RECOVERY data differs significantly (at 2p=0.01) to the HR of 1.335 from the non-randomised assessment reported by Mehra et al.
The Committee reviewed the external evidence from the non-randomised observational study (Mehra et al. Lancet May 22nd 2020) and the evidence from the RECOVERY trial on the effects of hydroxychloroquine on mortality among patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.
We saw no cogent reason to suspend recruitment for safety reasons. In particular, we noted that the hazard ratio for 28-day mortality (our primary outcome) in the current RECOVERY data differs significantly (at 2p=0.01) to the HR of 1.335 from the non-randomised assessment reported by Mehra et al.
https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/professional-downloads/2020_05_24-recovery-dmc-letter_.pdf
Treatments/meds have very little to do with dropping death rates - death rates have dropped significantly in response to reduced cases/hospitalizations as a result of interventions like stay at home orders, wearing masks and social distancing.
Fact: 100,000 Deaths
Probability Strong: That we will see a 2nd wave sometime in June/July when many of the fools who congregated around each other w/o masks get sick.
Probability Extremely Strong: That the Fall/Winter will produce another wave of deaths.
You don't have to have a science background to see this. You just have to follow the existing trends that tell you these events have a high probability of occurring.
Probability Strong: That we will see a 2nd wave sometime in June/July when many of the fools who congregated around each other w/o masks get sick.
Probability Extremely Strong: That the Fall/Winter will produce another wave of deaths.
You don't have to have a science background to see this. You just have to follow the existing trends that tell you these events have a high probability of occurring.
A large part of Mardi Gras is inside as well. Let’s call it half and half. It’s also held in late winter.
What about relative humidity and that effect on mucus molecules and transmission. It seems pretty clear that humidity levels when combined with temperatures have an impact on the spread at this point.
You can’t see through the trees. Sure there will be another round of deaths. Yes there will be an increase in cases in the fall. You are very likely wrong about June/July but I’ll admit it’s anyone’s guess. The real issue is overwhelming of the hospital system and protecting those being vulnerable. The USA now has everything in place to do exactly to prevent the hospital systems across America from being overwhelmed. And we know better now how to protect the vulnerable. We are learning to live with this and moving on. Stay inside and isolated for the next 2 years all you want.
Kind of find it interesting that a poster from South Carolina is lecturing a poster from NYS. I see things very clearly, I suspect far more clearly than you do as living in the State that is ground zero.
I am very likely right as the numbers in numerous states are going up, not down. What leads you to believe that there will not be a spike in June/July? All you need to do is look at the pictures of the Ozarks, Austin and numerous other places to see what is coming down the line.
Nobody is talking about staying inside for the next two years. But the only other alternative is not to throw caution to the wind and go into a restaurant with 100 people, none wearing a mask.
There is a middle ground which sensible people who don't have a death wish have reached.
Article on vaccines and race to find one, competitiveness and blowing too much smoke about ones results. Gotta say not happy to read such things about the scientific community...let the science guide you as they say. I suppose they’re humans just like anyone else and some of them are a little more boastful than they should be until proven.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-eprise/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-eprise/index.html
Can you please name the numerous states where the new case rate is increasing for me?
+1
The great thing about opening up is that it's voluntary. Folks that want to stay at home can still do so. No problem!
- Status
Similar threads
