LA County - 4% test positive for Antibody

Pretty consistent with the Santa Clara numbers also

quote:

---

Yet another antibody test that is tracking along with the other studies. This thing is completely widespread already.

---

Using the same unapproved Chinese test as the Stanford study, which has a false positive rate of at least 1.35%, but that assumes we’re trusting the Chinese manufacturer’s data.

quote:

---

Based on results of the first round of testing, the research team estimates that approximately 4.1% of the county's adult population has antibody to the virus

---

That's significantly lower than the other studies. At 4.1% we have a long way to go.

Very encouraging news.

It’s important to keep the stay at home orders in place a little longer but certainly good news.

I think you’re the only person I’ve seen to talk about this. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I haven’t seen any of the twitter nerds complain about it (the people from Harvard, etc.). They all complained about study design.

quote:

---

I think you’re the only person I’ve seen to talk about this. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I haven’t seen any of the twitter nerds complain about it (the people from Harvard, etc.). They all complained about study design.

---

Andrew Gelman (well-known statistician) went into detail about a number of the statistical issues (from the Stanford Study), some I hadn’t even mentioned.

Concerns with that Stanford study of coronavirus prevalence

quote:

---

I think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology. We wasted time and effort discussing this paper whose main selling point was some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error.

---

Not all of us are on Government assistance you stupid troll. Some of us have J O B S

Yep, it's been here for months already. In 5 years we will all be able to laugh at the stupidity over this virus and make fun of all involved. And yes I'm still voting for Trump in Nov.

quote:

---

Remembering how right you were and how much you argued Trump’s involvement with Russia during the 2016 election, means I can sleep tonight!

---

I don’t understand why you insist on lying about this for over 2 years.

That was an interesting read, and helps clear your position (in my head) a bit better. I have some skepticism about some points the author made such as:

quote:

---

If the specificity is 90%, we’re sunk. With a 90% specificity, you’d expect to see 333 positive tests out of 3330, even if nobody had the antibodies at all. Indeed, they only saw 50 positives, that is, 1.5%, so we can be pretty sure that the specificity is at least 98.5%.

---

as specificity and sensitivity are inversely related, so the results may be true, but it’s an assumption you have to take as given.

But this:

quote:

---

Why does their interval not include zero, then? I can’t be sure, but one possibility is that they did the sensitivity-specificity corrections on the poststratified estimate. But, if so, I don’t think that’s right. 50 positive tests is 50 positive tests, and if the specificity is really 98.5%, you could get that with no true cases.

---

is a more important point. As the authors of the Stanford study didn’t fully divulge all their methods, it can cast some doubts on the results. I do find it strange Ionnadis would do this.