Boston study shows 30% of the people have Covid-19 antibodies

The other way of looking at it is if 30% already have it, stopping the lockdown and allowing the remaining 70% to contract it will no worse than triple the number of deaths. That would be another 3000 fatalities max, out of 7 million people.

This study was done in Chelsea, the hardest hit city in the state by far with multiple times the known case rate of other areas. So you can't just extrapolate this out to the entire state.

Nice try, though.

Oh now I see your source is Fox News, of course they make it sound like this is for the whole state in the headline. Try reading a real news source next time.

I mean it is promising in that we may be closer to herd immunity than we think. But if the entire state was like Chelsea right now it would be an unmitigated disaster with people unable to get into hospitals.

We're also just hoping (with no real evidence) that infection provides some meaningful level of immunity.

We're also hoping these antibody tests are accurate despite minimal evaluation of them.

We're also ignoring a similar study of hospital staff in Wuhan that indicates only a few percent have antibodies.

Let's wait and see and in any event, the vast majority are still naive.

ygfkjfxcbnj wrote:

We're also just hoping (with no real evidence) that infection provides some meaningful level of immunity.

We're also hoping these antibody tests are accurate despite minimal evaluation of them.

We're also ignoring a similar study of hospital staff in Wuhan that indicates only a few percent have antibodies.

Let's wait and see and in any event, the vast majority are still naive.

Would you cite the Wuhan study? How can "only a few" have antbodies? Without your natural defenses you cannot recover from a viral infection.

Good one! wrote:

This study was done in Chelsea, the hardest hit city in the state by far with multiple times the known case rate of other areas. So you can't just extrapolate this out to the entire state.

Nice try, though.

But, but, but the experts.

It's the denominator, stupid! wrote:

Mass has tested only 156,806 out of its 6,900,000 residents. That's only 2.2% of the population.

Mass has only 36,000 confirmed cases out of 6,900,000. That's only 0.5% of the population.

So if 30% of the population has has the virus by a random study, yet there only 0.5percent confirmed cases (most people who've had the virus never get tested) the means the number of Covid19 cases is underreported by a factor of 60!

Divide the reported mortality rates by 60 and you get the real mortality rates. It really is, JUST THE FLU, folks!

https://www.foxnews.com/science/third-blood-samples-massachusetts-study-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR1Caeh0ozYCyGD1tz4X69B-Eer9HWZxe-7iWREhZ59oFonmrmShrBtL14E

This numbers don’t make sense. Currently, the people getting tested because they think they have it are being found positive at a 15% rate.

Would be almost impossible for that the rest of the population to have a higher positive rate than the people getting tested.

Wishful thinking though.

It's the denominator, stupid! wrote:

ygfkjfxcbnj wrote:

.

Would you cite the Wuhan study? How can "only a few" have antbodies? Without your natural defenses you cannot recover from a viral infection.

Its WSJ, I can't even see the details entirely.

These are not patients but hospital workers with a high likelihood of having been exposed. Only

2-3% seropositive means either:

1. No lasting immunity

2. A sketchy study/test/reagents

3. Wuhan hospitals were meticulous in isolating patients and protecting staff

mah son wrote:

This numbers don’t make sense. Currently, the people getting tested because they think they have it are being found positive at a 15% rate.

Would be almost impossible for that the rest of the population to have a higher positive rate than the people getting tested.

Wishful thinking though.

The op is referring to an antibodies test. In theory this test is positive if you've been exposed to the virus 1 week prior or longer. People who are recovered would test positive if their body produced longer lasting antibodies, even if they recovered a month prior.

The test you're referring to is testing for current infections. Only those currently battling the illness would test positive.

The numbers do make sense, you are not understanding what is actually being said.

Mass has done 162,000 tests, 38,000 confirmed cases. That's 23% positive rate. But that's a different test than the antibody test. That test is a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, or RT-PCR, where genetic material from a sample is copied and then compared to the genetic sequence of the virus you’re trying to detect.

It's the antibody (blood) test that tells is you've had covid-19 in the past. Serological tests rely on detecting antibodies in a blood sample, usually obtained through a simple finger prick.

When you’re exposed to the virus, your body develops antibodies, which can take several days to over a week. Antibodies are proteins your body makes when mounting a response against invading germs.

Since the vast majority of Covid-19 cases are mild, most people don't even know if they've had it, The fact that a random serological test on the street indicates that over 30% of the people in boston have had covid-19.

The numbers make sense. You're just not grasping what the numbers mean.

Do you know when this study was performed? I'm sure a higher percentage of the sample size would have the anti-bodies if they repeated the tests this week.

NO. CoVid 19 has barely invaded the USA. Are you kidding. Millions will die idiot if we reopen the country this year. Stay home!

It's the denominator, stupid! wrote:

ygfkjfxcbnj wrote:

We're also just hoping (with no real evidence) that infection provides some meaningful level of immunity.

We're also hoping these antibody tests are accurate despite minimal evaluation of them.

We're also ignoring a similar study of hospital staff in Wuhan that indicates only a few percent have antibodies.

Let's wait and see and in any event, the vast majority are still naive.

Would you cite the Wuhan study? How can "only a few" have antbodies? Without your natural defenses you cannot recover from a viral infection.

What?!? Oh my gosh, then this might kill people with weak immune systems, everyone panic!

Yes, these rapid blood antibody tests being used in the last few weeks are known to give bad results.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/us/coronavirus-antibody-tests.amp.html

I hope you have had fun distracting humanity from the elephant in the room. Global warming still exists and we need to end the lock down on global warming headlines. Let’s get back to frightening the populace with the REAL threat to life, the universe and everything.

[quote]It's the denominator, stupid! wrote:

Mass has tested only 156,806 out of its 6,900,000 residents. That's only 2.2% of the population.

Mass has only 36,000 confirmed cases out of 6,900,000. That's only 0.5% of the population.

So if 30% of the population has has the virus by a random study,

36,000 of 156,806 is about 23%, not 30%

[quote]Good one! wrote:

This study was done in Chelsea, the hardest hit city in the state by far with multiple times the known case rate of other areas. So you can't just extrapolate this out to the entire state.

Why not?

Giles Corey wrote:

[quote]Good one! wrote:

This study was done in Chelsea, the hardest hit city in the state by far with multiple times the known case rate of other areas. So you can't just extrapolate this out to the entire state.

Why not?

Why not?? Really?

It's not as bad as what was reported originally, but it's way worse than the flu. The deaths speak much louder than antibody test extrapolations.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/not-like-the-flu-not-like-car-crashes-not-like