LC Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 Not to mention more accurate transmission rates and exposure rates which could potentially justify reopening “the economy”, rather than making less educated estimates. For that, randomized antibody testing studies would be better. I agree. Why isn't it happening?
clutch Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 Not to mention more accurate transmission rates and exposure rates which could potentially justify reopening “the economy”, rather than making less educated estimates. For that, randomized antibody testing studies would be better. I agree. Why isn't it happening? I think they are being done at the moment in many states, but many people are concerned about its accuracy. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/politics/coronavirus-antibody-testing-problems-cdc-fda-invs/index.html
Liberty Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 Not to mention more accurate transmission rates and exposure rates which could potentially justify reopening “the economy”, rather than making less educated estimates. For that, randomized antibody testing studies would be better. Depends what the false positive rate is. It's one more data point, but it shouldn't be given more weight than it deserves.
Spekulatius Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 So its not just information for sake of information. The purpose is to reduce spread of infection. And resources needs to be focused on where it matters most. How do we know where it "matters most"? Masks. Nursing homes where more effort is put in separating infected from not infected. Better ventilation and training at Nursing homes. We are fighting the Virus on twitter and with the Fed. So far, the Virus doesn’t seem to care.
clutch Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 Not to mention more accurate transmission rates and exposure rates which could potentially justify reopening “the economy”, rather than making less educated estimates. For that, randomized antibody testing studies would be better. Depends what the false positive rate is. It's one more data point, but it shouldn't be given more weight than it deserves. Sure, but once we find a method that is precise enough, it will give us very strong confidence in the most important data -- infection fatality rate & infection rate.
Liberty Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 Sure, but once we find a method that is precise enough, it will give us very strong confidence in the most important data -- lethality rate & infection rate. That's an important "but" that can't be hand-waved away. A lot of antibody tests had false positives in the 50% range, depending the population being sampled (it'll be higher outside of the major outbreak zones). That's way too high to be very useful.
Jurgis Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 So its not just information for sake of information. The purpose is to reduce spread of infection. And resources needs to be focused on where it matters most. How do we know where it "matters most"? Masks. Nursing homes where more effort is put in separating infected from not infected. Better ventilation and training at Nursing homes. We are fighting the Virus with on twitter and with the Fed. So far, the Virus doesn’t seem to care. Virus does not have Twitter account yet? Oh horrors. How does it establish social presence then?
Liberty Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 Of course even the UFO conveniently-timed distraction was BS:
Jurgis Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Of course even the UFO conveniently-timed distraction was BS: Aliens brought Covid to Earth. The truth is out there!
Investor20 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Sure, but once we find a method that is precise enough, it will give us very strong confidence in the most important data -- lethality rate & infection rate. That's an important "but" that can't be hand-waved away. A lot of antibody tests had false positives in the 50% range, depending the population being sampled (it'll be higher outside of the major outbreak zones). That's way too high to be very useful. Stanford Dr. Bhattacharya says he had 0.5% false positive in his test. The 0.5% may be important for Santa Carla study that found 3% infection rate. But still you can take 2.5% and calculate IFR. 0.5% false positive is not important for NYC with 20% infection rate. Or Boston Chelsea with 30% infection rate. The different studies gave infection fatality rate between 0.1% to 0.5%. NY had higher rate at 0.5%. For example Miami Dade study gave 6% and 0.5% is not very important. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242260406.html They say 165000 infected. Presently about 500 dead (I dont know numbers as of mid April). So a conservative number of using todays 500 deaths/165000 gives 0.3% IFR. Below is a study by Denmark: Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 82 per 100,000 (CI: 59-154) infections. Thats 0.082% for patients younger than 70. The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI). New tests are even better. See below: Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine found Abbott’s test had a specificity rate of 99.9% and a sensitivity rate of 100%, suggesting very few chances of incorrectly diagnosing a healthy person with the infection and no false negatives. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/study-suggests-abbott-covid-19-antibody-test-highly-likely-to-give-correct-results.html Some people dont like the result of 0.1% to 0.5% IFR but it is now done by Denmark, Germany, Santa Carla, LA, Miami Dade, NYC, Boston by different well known professors and hospitals. The IFR is much lower if you take less than 70 population. At one point people need to agree with the data.
dwy000 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds Tend to agree. The ability to effectively lockdown like China is unrealistic for a long period of time. No matter how much sense it makes it simply won't happen.
clutch Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Sure, but once we find a method that is precise enough, it will give us very strong confidence in the most important data -- lethality rate & infection rate. That's an important "but" that can't be hand-waved away. A lot of antibody tests had false positives in the 50% range, depending the population being sampled (it'll be higher outside of the major outbreak zones). That's way too high to be very useful. Stanford Dr. Bhattacharya says he had 0.5% false positive in his test. The 0.5% may be important for Santa Carla study that found 3% infection rate. But still you can take 2.5% and calculate IFR. 0.5% false positive is not important for NYC with 20% infection rate. Or Boston Chelsea with 30% infection rate. The different studies gave infection fatality rate between 0.1% to 0.5%. NY had higher rate at 0.5%. For example Miami Dade study gave 6% and 0.5% is not very important. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242260406.html They say 165000 infected. Presently about 500 dead (I dont know numbers as of mid April). So a conservative number of using todays 500 deaths/165000 gives 0.3% IFR. Below is a study by Denmark: Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 82 per 100,000 (CI: 59-154) infections. Thats 0.082% for patients younger than 70. The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI). New tests are even better. See below: Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine found Abbott’s test had a specificity rate of 99.9% and a sensitivity rate of 100%, suggesting very few chances of incorrectly diagnosing a healthy person with the infection and no false negatives. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/study-suggests-abbott-covid-19-antibody-test-highly-likely-to-give-correct-results.html Some people dont like the result of 0.1% to 0.5% IFR but it is now done by Denmark, Germany, Santa Carla, LA, Miami Dade, NYC, Boston by different well known professors and hospitals. The IFR is much lower if you take less than 70 population. At one point people need to agree with the data. +1 It's puzzling how some people overlook at observed DATA because of the uncertainties while they trust a predictive MODEL with even more uncertainties due to its nature. Much of that has to do with their original (political) bias.
clutch Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds Tend to agree. The ability to effectively lockdown like China is unrealistic for a long period of time. No matter how much sense it makes it simply won't happen. And this will be more painstakingly clear as countries deal with second waves as soon as they lift lockdown measures... see what's happening in Singapore, S Korea, Wuhan as we speak...
Spekulatius Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Sure, but once we find a method that is precise enough, it will give us very strong confidence in the most important data -- lethality rate & infection rate. That's an important "but" that can't be hand-waved away. A lot of antibody tests had false positives in the 50% range, depending the population being sampled (it'll be higher outside of the major outbreak zones). That's way too high to be very useful. Stanford Dr. Bhattacharya says he had 0.5% false positive in his test. The 0.5% may be important for Santa Carla study that found 3% infection rate. But still you can take 2.5% and calculate IFR. 0.5% false positive is not important for NYC with 20% infection rate. Or Boston Chelsea with 30% infection rate. The different studies gave infection fatality rate between 0.1% to 0.5%. NY had higher rate at 0.5%. For example Miami Dade study gave 6% and 0.5% is not very important. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242260406.html They say 165000 infected. Presently about 500 dead (I dont know numbers as of mid April). So a conservative number of using todays 500 deaths/165000 gives 0.3% IFR. Below is a study by Denmark: Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 82 per 100,000 (CI: 59-154) infections. Thats 0.082% for patients younger than 70. The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI). New tests are even better. See below: Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine found Abbott’s test had a specificity rate of 99.9% and a sensitivity rate of 100%, suggesting very few chances of incorrectly diagnosing a healthy person with the infection and no false negatives. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/study-suggests-abbott-covid-19-antibody-test-highly-likely-to-give-correct-results.html Some people dont like the result of 0.1% to 0.5% IFR but it is now done by Denmark, Germany, Santa Carla, LA, Miami Dade, NYC, Boston by different well known professors and hospitals. The IFR is much lower if you take less than 70 population. At one point people need to agree with the data. I agree that some areas (NYC, Chelsea MA) are reaching numbers that imply that we are well on way of herd immunity. It that a true only in those heavily hit areas, not true in the rest of NY or MA and much less the rest of the country. It not true in Sweden either, Stockholm, Sweden represents only 10% of the Swedish population and that’s where the majority of the infection are for now. I am routing for the Swedes, they have a clear plan and are following it, so far within a fairly acceptable cost. Germany and other Skandinavien countries have pushed the curve far far down, so they have a chance squash the second waves ( the extend of which is a function of how far down the first wave have been pushed ) with aggressive test and track. What is our strategy? It depends on the state you are in and we just have to wing it. Sad.
Liberty Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (thread) We tested 3600 samples collected in Jan 2020 for COVID-19 status and found zero positives. We tested 3308 samples collected in Feb 2020 and found a first positive on Feb 21 with a total of 10 samples testing positive in Feb. 5/18
LC Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (thread) We tested 3600 samples collected in Jan 2020 for COVID-19 status and found zero positives. We tested 3308 samples collected in Feb 2020 and found a first positive on Feb 21 with a total of 10 samples testing positive in Feb. 5/18 Interesting thread, thanks again for posting.
Investor20 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Sure, but once we find a method that is precise enough, it will give us very strong confidence in the most important data -- lethality rate & infection rate. That's an important "but" that can't be hand-waved away. A lot of antibody tests had false positives in the 50% range, depending the population being sampled (it'll be higher outside of the major outbreak zones). That's way too high to be very useful. Stanford Dr. Bhattacharya says he had 0.5% false positive in his test. The 0.5% may be important for Santa Carla study that found 3% infection rate. But still you can take 2.5% and calculate IFR. 0.5% false positive is not important for NYC with 20% infection rate. Or Boston Chelsea with 30% infection rate. The different studies gave infection fatality rate between 0.1% to 0.5%. NY had higher rate at 0.5%. For example Miami Dade study gave 6% and 0.5% is not very important. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242260406.html They say 165000 infected. Presently about 500 dead (I dont know numbers as of mid April). So a conservative number of using todays 500 deaths/165000 gives 0.3% IFR. Below is a study by Denmark: Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 82 per 100,000 (CI: 59-154) infections. Thats 0.082% for patients younger than 70. The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI). New tests are even better. See below: Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine found Abbott’s test had a specificity rate of 99.9% and a sensitivity rate of 100%, suggesting very few chances of incorrectly diagnosing a healthy person with the infection and no false negatives. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/study-suggests-abbott-covid-19-antibody-test-highly-likely-to-give-correct-results.html Some people dont like the result of 0.1% to 0.5% IFR but it is now done by Denmark, Germany, Santa Carla, LA, Miami Dade, NYC, Boston by different well known professors and hospitals. The IFR is much lower if you take less than 70 population. At one point people need to agree with the data. I agree that some areas (NYC, Chelsea MA) are reaching numbers that imply that we are well on way of herd immunity. It that a true only in those heavily hit areas, not true in the rest of NY or MA and much less the rest of the country. It not true in Sweden either, Stockholm, Sweden represents only 10% of the Swedish population and that’s where the majority of the infection are for now. I am routing for the Swedes, they have a clear plan and are following it, so far within a fairly acceptable cost. Germany and other Skandinavien countries have pushed the curve far far down, so they have a chance squash the second waves ( the extend of which is a function of how far down the first wave have been pushed ) with aggressive test and track. What is our strategy? It depends on the state you are in and we just have to wing it. Sad. The strategy will depend on the data and scientists doing their studies and discussing their data and opinions openly without being attacked. Below is an interview with Dr. John Ioannidis. Initially Stanford team was criticized for their study conclusion of lower IFR and was told their experiment has serious short comings. Then as more and more teams got similar result across the world, he is being told everyone always meant much lower IFR than 1%, there is nothing new here........well read it https://undark.org/2020/05/09/john-ioannidis-responds/ UD: Who thought that? The WHO said that 3.4 percent was the case fatality rate. Epidemiologists I’ve talked to said that it was clear the true infection fatality rate would likely end up being much lower. One scientist described the argument you’re making right now as “a straw man.” JI: Well, let’s go back and check the exact announcement. [Note: The WHO announcement in question, from early March, specifies that “3.4 percent of reported cases have died.”] That was at the time when WHO had sent an envoy to China. And [the WHO envoy] came back and he said there’s no asymptomatic cases. Just go back and see what the statement was. He said there’s hardly any asymptomatic cases, it’s very serious and has a case fatality of 3.4 percemt. Of course, that [fatality rate] was gradually dialed back to 1 percent or 0.9 percent. And these are the numbers that went into calculations, and these are the numbers that are still in many of the calculations, you know, until very recently. You know, 1 percent is, is probably like the disaster case, maybe in some places in Queens, for example, it may be 1 percent, because you have all that perfect storm of nursing homes, and nosocomial infection [an infection that originates in a hospital], and no hospital system functioning. In many other places, it’s much, much lower. ...............
ERICOPOLY Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 New York City area antibody test results show that crucial frontline workers, such as first responders and health care employees, have lower rates of exposure to the coronavirus than the general population, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/live-blog/2020-05-13-coronavirus-news-n1205916/ncrd1206251#liveBlogHeader
samwise Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Germany and other Skandinavien countries have pushed the curve far far down, so they have a chance squash the second waves ( the extend of which is a function of how far down the first wave have been pushed ) with aggressive test and track. I haven't been able to envisage the end state here. So imagine you are super-successful like Oz, NZ, Singapore and your cases go to zero. The rest of the world (ROW) screws up and muddles its way to group immunity, perhaps at horrific cost. So ROW have 70-80% people with immunity, and the virus is still circulating. Now you have three ways out. 1. Vaccine is developed and you get immunity without the horrific costs. 2. The virus is totally eradicated. 3. You live in your bubble, separate from the rest of the world until either 1 or 2 happen. This doesn't seem like a viable option if its a long time. So whats the end state these guys are thinking of or hoping for?
Jurgis Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Germany and other Skandinavien countries have pushed the curve far far down, so they have a chance squash the second waves ( the extend of which is a function of how far down the first wave have been pushed ) with aggressive test and track. I haven't been able to envisage the end state here. So imagine you are super-successful like Oz, NZ, Singapore and your cases go to zero. The rest of the world (ROW) screws up and muddles its way to group immunity, perhaps at horrific cost. So ROW have 70-80% people with immunity, and the virus is still circulating. Now you have three ways out. 1. Vaccine is developed and you get immunity without the horrific costs. 2. The virus is totally eradicated. 3. You live in your bubble, separate from the rest of the world until either 1 or 2 happen. This doesn't seem like a viable option if its a long time. So whats the end state these guys are thinking of or hoping for? You might be misunderstanding the situation with "ROW have 70-80% people with immunity, and the virus is still circulating". This does not mean that virus is actively shedding from 70-80% of ROW. So, yeah Oz, NZ can live in their bubble by testing everyone who comes into the country. It's not that high load on testing. Admit people who test negative, kick out the ones who test positive, and track or quarantine everyone who enters for incubation period. Is that impossible for them to do long term (3+ years)? Edit: I guess tourism would be mostly screwed though.
Spekulatius Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Germany and other Skandinavien countries have pushed the curve far far down, so they have a chance squash the second waves ( the extend of which is a function of how far down the first wave have been pushed ) with aggressive test and track. I haven't been able to envisage the end state here. So imagine you are super-successful like Oz, NZ, Singapore and your cases go to zero. The rest of the world (ROW) screws up and muddles its way to group immunity, perhaps at horrific cost. So ROW have 70-80% people with immunity, and the virus is still circulating. Now you have three ways out. 1. Vaccine is developed and you get immunity without the horrific costs. 2. The virus is totally eradicated. 3. You live in your bubble, separate from the rest of the world until either 1 or 2 happen. This doesn't seem like a viable option if its a long time. So whats the end state these guys are thinking of or hoping for? I wouldn’t necessarily discount the possibility that bilateral travel bubbles form between countries with a low enough prevalence of COVID-19. In fact both New Zealand and Australia are thinking about this and this would help out the New Zealand tours industry as most tourist come from Australia. I can see other bubbles forming in other regions like Northern Europe and later southern there Europe if the number go down far enough. You only need to do this for 18 month hopefully until a vaccine is there and / or you can reduce the risk of adverse outcomes with better medication. So they would be the end state since you ask for it. Since I am basically located in a COVID-19 leper colony here in MA, I am not counting of going anywhere far this year, certainly not Europe as I planned. It’s probably going to be a camping trip north, if those folks from VT, NH or ME will have us. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/trans-tasman-travel-bubble-to-allow-flights-as-soon-as-lockdowns-ease-morrison-and-ardern-agree
Liberty Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Trump knows better than everyone about everything: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-trump-says-faucis-warnings-about-reopening-are-not-acceptable.html Top coronavirus health expert Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent warning about the potentially dire consequences of reopening states and schools too soon was “not an acceptable answer,” President Donald Trump said Wednesday.
Viking Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 Germany and other Skandinavien countries have pushed the curve far far down, so they have a chance squash the second waves ( the extend of which is a function of how far down the first wave have been pushed ) with aggressive test and track. I haven't been able to envisage the end state here. So imagine you are super-successful like Oz, NZ, Singapore and your cases go to zero. The rest of the world (ROW) screws up and muddles its way to group immunity, perhaps at horrific cost. So ROW have 70-80% people with immunity, and the virus is still circulating. Now you have three ways out. 1. Vaccine is developed and you get immunity without the horrific costs. 2. The virus is totally eradicated. 3. You live in your bubble, separate from the rest of the world until either 1 or 2 happen. This doesn't seem like a viable option if its a long time. So whats the end state these guys are thinking of or hoping for? I wouldn’t necessarily discount the possibility that bilateral travel bubbles form between countries with a low enough prevalence of COVID-19. In fact both New Zealand and Australia are thinking about this and this would help out the New Zealand tours industry as most tourist come from Australia. I can see other bubbles forming in other regions like Northern Europe and later southern there Europe if the number go down far enough. You only need to do this for 18 month hopefully until a vaccine is there and / or you can reduce the risk of adverse outcomes with better medication. So they would be the end state since you ask for it. Since I am basically located in a COVID-19 leper colony here in MA, I am not counting of going anywhere far this year, certainly not Europe as I planned. It’s probably going to be a camping trip north, if those folks from VT, NH or ME will have us. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/trans-tasman-travel-bubble-to-allow-flights-as-soon-as-lockdowns-ease-morrison-and-ardern-agree Who is going to want to allow travellers in from the US given the large number of continuing cases? I think Canada and US will need to decide soon what to do about the border for June... my guess is Trudeau is going to want to continue with current restrictions while the ‘stable genius‘ is going to want to get back to normal... International travel is going to be severely restricted. Imagine being that person from China who travels to the US and is involved with a positive test? Or an American going to China and same? Just think about the political points to be scored by Trump or the Chinese state. Crazy times.
Recommended Posts