- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Antibody study in Netherlands shows that 3% had coronavirus. What it means for us.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:21 pm to Cosmo
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:21 pm to Cosmo
quote:
The Netherlands
I lived there in the mid-90s. Obesity is relatively low, due in part to the fact that the bicycle is the primary mode of transportation for so many of them. You don’t see fat people like you see here.
However, smoking is very common, and many smoke filterless cigarettes.
0
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:24 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
Hope everyone really enjoyed Mardi Gras. So many bad omens. We should have volunteered to shut that shite down after the Endymion death
I had a blast this year. Never got sick. It also seemed like it was the most crowded it had been since before Katrina.
But then again, I actually practice good hygiene and wash my hands a lot.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:30 pm to WaWaWeeWa
You’re assuming New Orleans and the Netherlands would have similar mortality rates.
New Orleans likely has a much higher mortality rate.
New Orleans likely has a much higher mortality rate.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:32 pm to LSUtwolves
quote:
You’re assuming New Orleans and the Netherlands would have similar mortality rates.
We are all assuming a lot. I’m just using the data at hand to make an educated guess.
quote:
New Orleans likely has a much higher mortality rate.
That’s a big assumption. We don’t know all the factors that play into this disease. We could very well have a lower mortality for various reasons.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:43 pm to WaWaWeeWa
This once again raises the question of what the hell is going on with testing in the US? Why should we even need to rely on some small non-random Dutch sample to get an indication of disease prevalence in this country? It sure seems like we need a housecleaning at the CDC, FDA and any other hidebound healthcare bureaucracy that actually has a say an anything important.
This post was edited on 4/16/20 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 4/16/20 at 4:56 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
This once again raises the question of what the hell is going on with testing in the US?
There are ongoing antibody tests here, which we will know the results of shortly. We aren’t behind.
This was just a study of blood donors. That’s not a great sample to be honest. Some Dutch politician hinted at the results of this Dutch study before the release of the data. So we still need to evaluate the study when it’s released.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:01 pm to WildManGoose
We were talking about infected numbers.
Not deaths.
Not deaths.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:05 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:And we need to be aware that the results will likely indicate significantly higher estimates of infection rates than reality due to the high probability of false positives even with 98 to 99 percent accuracy (likely lower).
There are ongoing antibody tests here, which we will know the results of shortly. We aren’t behind.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:06 pm to buckeye_vol
Why are the antibodies test more likely to give a false positive than a false negative?
I asked the same question as to why the covid tests were more likely to give a false negative than a false positive, never got an answer. I've somewhat figured out that it would be due to lower virus count at whatever time the sample is taken.
I asked the same question as to why the covid tests were more likely to give a false negative than a false positive, never got an answer. I've somewhat figured out that it would be due to lower virus count at whatever time the sample is taken.
This post was edited on 4/16/20 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:09 pm to fightin tigers
Because you produce antibodies similar to the antibodies from covid 19 for many other diseases and the antibodies test can’t drill down that
Specifically yet
Specifically yet
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:10 pm to jlovel7
quote:
I've got chicken and shrimp in there for my mid afternoon snack before my crawfish Etouffee dinner tonight.
That sounds delicious. Are you putting the etouffee on the leftover fried chicken?
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:11 pm to Geauxld Finger
Idiot
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:15 pm to TigerstuckinMS
Like there will be any fried chicken left
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:20 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Solid math.
I gotta predict N O. mortality might be greater than the Dutch as N.O. is incredibly unhealthy.
I gotta predict N O. mortality might be greater than the Dutch as N.O. is incredibly unhealthy.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:26 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
98 to 99 percent accuracy (likely lower).
Depends on the assay. More than likely this wasn’t a finger stick because they were blood donors. This was probably a much more accurate lab assay.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:43 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:The only FDA approved test with a legitimate lab test study that I’ve seen showed a 98.4% specificity for the lgg antibody but with low sensitivity with a 96% agreement for negative results with the lgm antibody and 93% agreement for positive results.
Depends on the assay. More than likely this wasn’t a finger stick because they were blood donors. This was probably a much more accurate lab assay.
So even using that 98.4%, that would mean a 1% infection rate would result in 1.58% of the sample testing falsely positive.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:54 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The only FDA approved test with a legitimate lab test study that I’ve seen showed a 98.4% specificity for the lgg antibody but with low sensitivity with a 96% agreement for negative results with the lgm antibody and 93% agreement for positive results. So even using that 98.4%, that would mean a 1% infection rate would result in 1.58% of the sample testing falsely positive.
I’m not disputing what you are saying. I’m hopeful that they took this into account in the study. It’s a pretty obvious factor for anyone who knows statistics.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:56 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
There are ongoing antibody tests here, which we will know the results of shortly. We aren’t behind.
I hope you're right, but the proof is in the pudding. The CDC and FDA have already botched this once, when they took longer than virtually every other first world country to get viral testing up to speed, and we still lag in terms of percentage of the population tested. It'll be interesting to see if the US can keep up with countries like South Korea, which presumably has a fraction of our resources, when it comes to antibody testing.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 6:02 pm to WaWaWeeWa
So for NOLA that would translate to about 1 in 7 infected actually got tested thus showed some symptoms. Or 14% are symptomatic. Might be close.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 6:04 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
This means the infection mortality rate would be 0.6%
And for this we took the best economy we’ve ever had and destroyed it to the point we’re reaching depression levels.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News