- 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: Stanford University anti-body study finds COVID-19 more widespread than thought
Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:48 pm to PhiTiger1764
Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:48 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:
It’s ok to admit that this virus is much deadlier than the flu. Several times deadlier.
Actually, probably just twice as deadly.
0
Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:49 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:
Imagine thinking you know more than the President of the United States and the Governors of all 50 states. Each of whom are being advised by large teams of the smartest medical professionals in the country.
Or not.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:50 pm to GumboPot
quote:
This is expected given COVID's R0 number of 5.7. This virus is almost 4 times as infectious as influenza.
That number is way too high. Mean estimates have it more like 2.65
Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:51 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
The rate in the US is much higher
No it isn't.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 8:52 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:
Each of whom are being advised by large teams of the smartest medical professionals in the country.
Well the governor of new jersey was asked what science the indefinite shutdown was based on. He had no answer. He also said the bill of rights was above his paygrade
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:04 pm to RB10
quote:Yes it is. The R0 was originally estimated to be about 2 times greater than the seasonal flu, and an IFR of about 15 times the seasonal flu.
That's not how this works.
If in reality the IFR is only 5 times greater than the seasonal flu because there are more undetected cases, then it’s more contagious, but less deadly.
That being said, they used an unapproved test, and positive cases were based on either a positive result for the LGM is the LGG antibody and negative cases based on a negative result for both. They estimated the sensitivity to be 80% (true positives) and specificity to be 99.5% (true negatives).
However, the first (and maybe only) FDA approved test by Cellex found that using that same methodology (LGM and LGG antibodies) estimates the sensitivity to be 93.8% and the specificity to be 96%.
If we just combine all of the studies of the negative tests (369/371 by Premier; 3/30 by the Stanford researchers; 240/250 by Cellex) then the specificity (639/651) was 98.16%, which means that 1.84% of the sample negative claws would be a false positive.
So even if every person in their study (3330 participants) was actually negative we would expect even more false positives (0.0184*3330=61) than positives that they found (50; 1.5% of study).
In other words, we can’t even infer that a single test was actually positive, and that’s not even taking into account potential sample bias (Facebook recruitment instead of random sample) and sampling error.
Cellex, FDA antibody study results
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:07 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
If you extrapolate out the 50-85 fold across the country, you get some insanely high numbers of infected, which results in an insanely low CFR.
Current confirmed cases: 666,573
Current deaths: 30,449
Even if we take the low end and use 50, that comes out to over 33 million.
30,449/33,000,000 == 0.09%
Which is, wait for it, the mortality rate of the seasonal flu.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:09 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Yes it is. The R0 was originally estimated to be about 2 times greater than the seasonal flu, and an IFR of about 15 times the seasonal flu.
If in reality the IFR is only 5 times greater than the seasonal flu because there are more undetected cases, then it’s more contagious, but less deadly.
"20 to 40 times worse than the flu."
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:12 pm to RB10
quote:If a virus is twice as contagious as the flu and 10 times as deadly, then it’s 20 times worse than the flu.
"20 to 40 times worse than the flu."
In fact, since an R0 of 2.6 spreads exponentially faster than an R0 of 1.3, you could argue that it’s far worse than 20.
This post was edited on 4/17/20 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:14 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
If a virus is twice as contagious as the flu and 10 times as deadly, then it’s 20 times worse than the flu.
If you're going to use the estimates for how many cases it has to make it "twice as contagious", you have to use those same estimates for the death rate. So, by your math, it's not even close to 10x as deadly.
You can't have it both ways.
This post was edited on 4/17/20 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:14 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:
Even a 0.4% true death rate that the other poster is touting is well below what a vast majority of medical professionals have estimated. And whenever pressed with real data like confirmed deaths the question becomes “how many of those deaths really had the virus?”
No, it isn't. See Iceland data.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:19 pm to RB10
quote:I used the prevailing estimates of spread (R0 between 2 and 3) and fatality (1% to 2%).
If you're going to use the estimates for how many cases it has to make it "twice as contagious", you have to use those same estimates for the death rate. So, by your math, it's not even close to 10x as deadly
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:20 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I used the prevailing estimates of spread (R0 between 2 and 3) and fatality (1% to 2%).
You made shite up that has no basis in fact.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:21 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
In other words, we can’t even infer that a single test was actually positive, and that’s not even taking into account potential sample bias (Facebook recruitment instead of random sample) and sampling error.
Do we know they didn’t account for false positives?
Seems like something every scientist would immediately think of.
I haven’t seen the actual paper yet.
This post was edited on 4/17/20 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I used the prevailing estimates of spread (R0 between 2 and 3) and fatality (1% to 2%).
That's not the prevailing fatality spread, bro.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:25 pm to RB10
quote:
You made shite up that has no basis in fact.
His R0 spread is okay. The fatality rate spread is nonsense.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:27 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
His R0 spread is okay. The fatality rate spread is nonsense.
Which is my point. His "20 to 40 times worse than the flu" statement is asinine.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:28 pm to RB10
quote:What? These are based on a number of studies. There have been tons of studies estimating he R0 to be between 2.0 and 3.0. And a study by the Yale epidemiologists the White House consigned with estimated the IFR to be 1.4% and Fauci is on record with estimating it as 1%.
You made shite up that has no basis in fact.
Since the R0 of the flu is usually between 1 and 1.5 the the fatality rate is about 0.1%. That roughly means it’s between 13 to 42 times worse than the flu, with a midpoint of about 20 to 25.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 9:31 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And a study by the Yale epidemiologists the White House consigned with estimated the IFR to be 1.4% and Fauci is on record with estimating it as 1%.
When was the Yale study? I know Fauci said that before antibody testing.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News