re: COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County (There she goes)

@justin_hart

Hold onto your hats. Get blown away with the first big seroprevalance report are coming out.

And the fatality rate just got bottomed out to influenza levels

Here's what the seroprevalence report means!
- The population of Santa Clara county, CA is 1.9M (the heart of Silicon Valley and home to Stanford
- Currently, only 1700 people have been diagnosed with #COVID19 and 66 people have died
- That's a crude fatality rate of 3.6%

Usually tests are limited to people who show symptoms, people who are sick. The seroprevelance tests people randomly to test for possible antibodies:
"the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%)."

This means that the ACTUAL population of people who have been infected with #COVID19: "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."

If the deaths are at 66 and the true infected population is 48K then the fatality rate is .14% !!

If the range is at the upper end and 81K people were infected then the fatality rate is not even .1%

Obviously, something tragic and awful happened in NYC and the surrounding 7 counties which touch it. They still need our help there and the CFR / IFR will vary by region (just as it does from country to country). A larger study of MLB employees coming out will be telling.

And to truly compare things we need to understand how influenza is measured. So... in the 2017-18 season

It was: 44M estimated symptomatic
22M went to the doctor
800K to the hospital
61K died

61K / 44M is .14%

So that's the comparison level.

Replying to @justin_hart

There’s something that is happening is that the lockdowns themselves are creating a greater problem. That’s as obvious as the nose on your face

Replying to @61JZ

I think that's true. LINK

quote:

---

Yes and no, because we had the Princess Diamond data which suggested this was the most likely outcome, but not proven as no anti-body test at that time.

---

We can make the same assumption with the Diamond Princess as we can with NYC. Assuming 100% of DP passengers+crew were infected, 12 deaths out of 3700 is 0.3%. Yes, they skew old-ish, but NYC skews young, and the same 100% infection assumption produces 0.1% so far. This data gives us a very strong lower bound on the unvaccinated (and no miracle treatment) mortality rate. This makes it extremely difficult to believe that a study which produces a mortality rate lower than this is estimating infection rate accurately.

quote:

---

We can make the same assumption with the Diamond Princess as we can with NYC. Assuming 100% of DP passengers+crew were infected, 12 deaths out of 3700 is 0.3%. Yes, they skew old-ish, but NYC skews young, and the same 100% infection assumption produces 0.1% so far. This data gives us a very strong lower bound on the unvaccinated (and no miracle treatment) mortality rate. This makes it extremely difficult to believe that a study which produces a mortality rate lower than this is estimating infection rate accurately.

---

Not sure what this means, 100% of the boat didn't test positive even though they probably should have or close to it.

quote:

---

It's possible that tens of millions of Americans had this virus at some point but remained asymptomatic.

---

Probable

quote:

---

He is saying that the lowest possible mortality rate in the Diamond Princess is .3% If you assume a 100% infection rate: 12 deaths/3700 infections = 0.0032

---

Yes, but the sample is heavily skewed to people in the danger zone.

Let's do nursing homes next, nobody is saying people don't die from it or even selected categories of people... fat sick old fricks are first on the menu.

quote:

---

Yes, but the sample is heavily skewed to people in the danger zone.

Let's do nursing homes next, nobody is saying people don't die from it or even selected categories of people... fat sick old fricks are first on the menu.

---

NYC is skewed a bit toward young and healthy, and their data suggests a lower bound of 0.1%.