Manic of a panic is geopolitical

[Till]

Originally Posted by kriesel

California and Massachusetts sampling of the general populations in small survey areas have indicated about a third of the general public have antibodies already. That figure is far higher than the case count indicated.

These dark figures are indeed very high. Do you have references?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Till

These dark figures are indeed very high. Do you have references?

I don't have references but question your choice of the adjective "dark".

If true, those people are both unlikely to infect others and are likely to be able to live relatively normal lives. In particular, they should be able to partake in activities which are to the benefit of others.

[Till]

Originally Posted by xilman

I don't have references but question your choice of the adjective "dark".

If true, those people are both unlikely to infect others and are likely to be able to live relatively normal lives. In particular, they should be able to partake in activities which are to the benefit of others.

How do you conclude that if the "dark figures" are that high, people are unlikely to infect others? That is utter nonsense. If the dark figures are that high, then there has been an immense amount of people infecting others for several weeks.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Till

How do you conclude that if the "dark figures" are that high, people are unlikely to infect others? That is utter nonsense. If the dark figures are that high, then there has been an immense amount of people infecting others for several weeks.

I am making the (plausible?) assumption that infection leads to at least temporary immunity.

To me, that is an encouraging sign, not a dark one.

[Till]

Originally Posted by xilman

I am making the (plausible?) assumption that infection leads to at least temporary immunity.

I hope so. But some of those infected by people with little/no symptoms are dying. So a huge "dark figure" means that many are dying, many more necessary than if there had been an appropriate amount of testing.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by Till

How do you conclude that if the "dark figures" are that high, people are unlikely to infect others? That is utter nonsense. If the dark figures are that high, then there has been an immense amount of people infecting others for several weeks.

The post you cited is "antibodies", not "testing positive". A large number of people with antibodies is good for the future, not bad, right? All else equal, we'd rather discover that everyone has already been exposed versus learning that only 5% of the population has been exposed.

[Till]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

The post you cited is "antibodies", not "testing positive". A large number of people with antibodies is good for the future, not bad, right? All else equal, we'd rather discover that everyone has already been exposed versus learning that only 5% of the population has been exposed.

VBCurtis, I understood that pretty well.
"testing positive" are the official numbers, and
"antibodies" are supposed to reflect the "true" situation (on a small sample base)


And Kriesel posted that 1/3 of the population of selected regions already had antibodies.
That was such a high number that I was asking for references.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

The post you cited is "antibodies", not "testing positive". A large number of people with antibodies is good for the future, not bad, right? All else equal, we'd rather discover that everyone has already been exposed versus learning that only 5% of the population has been exposed.

My point exactly, but much better phrased.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Till

These dark figures are indeed very high. Do you have references?

These figures are cause for optimism, not gloom. Testing positive for live virus is very different from testing positive for antibodies that defend against the virus.
There are multiple articles reflecting studies which establish 30-40% prevalence of antibodies for Covid19 in sample populations of hundreds each in Massachusetts.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....12.20059618v1 is one done at a homeless shelter.
See also https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...&postcount=656 for corroborating links posted earlier in this thread; random anonymous sampling of people on the street, and a test of the sewage system's viral debris load.

Santa Clara County California: in a study sampling the status of over 3300 individuals, antibodies test results indicate antibody presence and so previous exposure, to a fraction of the population 50 to 85 times as high as the official case count.

The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara
County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the
population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the
three scenarios for test performance characteristics, 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%). 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.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20062463v1

That so many people have encountered the virus and did not have enough adverse effects from it to run to the doctor, get diagnosed, and get added to the official case count, is very encouraging. If these samples are representative of the US population as a whole, around 10 million to 100 million Americans have already had the virus, and most didn't even know it. Many in my community and I may be among them.

Not only is it rare to become diagnosed after exposure, but these results in both California and Massachusetts may mean there is a vast pool of people that could donate plasma with antibodies and help the seriously ill. Similar would apply to other hard hit areas.

In combination, the prevalence of antibodies and fatality totals put this in the rough numerical range of a bad influenza season.

The high Massachussetts figures from multiple studies indicate a considerable step toward establishing herd immunity there; nearly half way.

And yes, I have multiple references on my resume, but I'm not job hunting now.

[Till]

The Santa Clara study looks representative, the others do not.
But the Santa Clara study only talks about 1.5% infected, not 33% ?


Btw. with "dark figures" I did not mean bad ones or "gloom", just numbers that we can only speculate on, if you understand...


Sorry I am off for today. Good evening to all !

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Till

Btw. with "dark figures" I did not mean bad ones or "gloom", just numbers that we can only speculate on, if you understand...

I had wondered if it might be a language issue.


Dein Englisch ist viel besser als mein Deutsch.