This is what Michael Caine has to say on the matter:I feel the Dutch are not being mentioned enough you chauvinist pigs!
This is what Michael Caine has to say on the matter:I feel the Dutch are not being mentioned enough you chauvinist pigs!
My-Cocaine!
The article seems relevant, but even the author admits there may be assumption errors. My biggest question, maybe I missed it, is what percentage of the target population was tested and if the tests are accurate. I know I have seen articles where they say the antibody tests are still a little unreliable, with as much as 60% false positives (can't remember where I read it). Another possible reason, is maybe people are not developing antibodies like we expect... we have only been at this for 3 months... this stuff takes time.The status outlook is bough to us by a concerning study from our favorite unlockdownable friends the Swedes.
Details of the study are hereThe article seems relevant, but even the author admits there may be assumption errors. My biggest question, maybe I missed it, is what percentage of the target population was tested and if the tests are accurate. I know I have seen articles where they say the antibody tests are still a little unreliable, with as much as 60% false positives (can't remember where I read it). Another possible reason, is maybe people are not developing antibodies like we expect... we have only been at this for 3 months... this stuff takes time.
“It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”
No clue as we have nothing to compare it against. As I have said we will not honestly know until this time next year with the total death counts being mostly up to date through 2020. Hopefully the numbers can be reviewed and a new best practice going forward can be crafted so when the next pandemic hits we are not caught without toilet paper again.The status outlook is bought to us by a concerning study from our favorite unlockdownable friends the Swedes. Testing performed in April suggests by the end of that month only 7.3% of the residents of Stockholm had antibodies to defend them from COVID-19. They had been expecting closer to 20% by May 1st. If the results are correct and it is the case that such a small number acquire immunity with each wave, even rounding it up to an eventual 10% you are looking at perhaps five or six waves (years, if it's seasonal and strikes hardest in winter) before immune numbers are at the level where Heard Immunity (which they are definitely not trying to achieve) can defend the population, assuming the pathogen does not then mutate into another strain which will start the cycle all over again:
Just 7.3% of Stockholm had Covid-19 antibodies by end of April, study shows
Official findings add to concerns about Sweden’s laissez-faire strategy towards the pandemicwww.theguardian.com
Does this set the front-loading-deaths theory back a bit...?
Past pandemics have also shown that infection rates are not a constant spread through the population. That they tend to form hot spots and do a lot of jumping around amongst a closed population. Some of it was attributed to the lack of traveling most of the populations did during the time periods but even within a city it was found that the spread was not even from an initial infection point but would flare up in sporadic pockets. This means unless you are testing a large enough sampling of a population the test results would be skewed one way or the other significantly.This is all still very much in the air. We're still playing on version 1.0 with antibody tests... there is still a lot of work to be done. Some good articles attached.
Understanding the startling rates of false positives and false negatives for tests that seem, on the surface, to be quite accurate could have profound consequences for health policy as we travel deeper into this pandemic. Failing to do our mathematical due diligence has the potential to take us past the tipping point beyond which the epidemic starts to grow again, leading to even more avoidable deaths.
The first commercial antibody tests to gain the FDA’s nod — from Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics and Chembio Diagnostic Systems — have sensitivity rates from 94 to 100 percent. The higher the sensitivity, the less likely a test is to give a false negative result — saying someone doesn’t have antibodies when they really do. A person may also get a false negative result if they’re tested too early, before antibodies begin to accumulate around one to two weeks into an infection.
Part of the challenge with specificity in this context is that SARS-CoV-2 is not the only member of the coronavirus family to infect human beings. Two other coronaviruses, SARS and MERS, caused earlier multi-country outbreaks. Moreover, there are at least four coronaviruses that cause a fraction of cases of the common cold.
With SARS-CoV-2 so new, it’s hard to be sure. Not all infections create immunity; tetanus, for example, often doesn’t.
Those data seem to indicate that 4 to 5 percent of people in those places had already been exposed, giving Covid-19 a fatality rate closer to 0.1 to 0.2 percent. But those studies, which have not yet been reviewed by other scientists, have come under fire, partly due to the high rate of mistaken results in the test, which has not undergone FDA review and has a known tendency toward false positives.
This one is a really good read, packed with info
COVID-19 Antibody Testing: Tougher Than True/False
Antibodies should indicate if someone has had an infection in the past. But the promise of “immunity testing” is plagued by uncertainty about how the immune system responds to the coronavirus, as well as concerns about the tests’ accuracy.www.discovermagazine.com
Why the Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests Varies So Much
The FDA cracks down on test makers as independent evaluations of their products' performance show a need for improvement.www.the-scientist.com
New study confirms that 10 percent of the Stockholm population has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
In the beginning of April, approximately 10 percent of Stockholm’s population had, at one point, formed antibodies against the virus causing COVID-19; according to a new study done by researchers […]www.scilifelab.se
Coronavirus: surprisingly big problems caused by small errors in testing
A test that tells you with 94% accuracy that you have had coronavirus seems like a game-changer…until you do the maths.theconversation.com
Exactly, I agree... those pockets are going to vary from city to city, social group, employment group and so on.This means unless you are testing a large enough sampling of a population the test results would be skewed one way or the other significantly.
By the way, are you and Montoya debating something or just joking back and forth?This looks odd. Worldbank WITS - is their data ok?
World Integrated Trade Solution Trade Stats | Data Catalog
WITS Trade Stats is a database created by aggregating data from UN COMTRADE and UNCTAD TRAINS database. It provides information on bilateral trade exports, imports and tariffs for over 180 countries and regions.datacatalog.worldbank.org
View attachment 16090
I suppose you are talking about the arrogant statement (Sweden antilockdown)... I was joking/serious, I think Montoya was joking/serious... I think everyone else thought we were yelling at each other. This is actually a very talented and technical group talking about data, economics and so forth... everything related to the covid-19 experience play by play.By the way, are you and Montoya debating something or just joking back and forth?
Indeed I would say its because they have been dealing with SAR which is true but the sad part is SAR's and swine flue should have been a wake-up call to the rest of the world to make sure there was a plan in place for when it got out instead of this knee jerk reaction.This was interesting, it shows what you can do when you have a functioning infectious disease plan/organized response, some discipline, and of course grunt work:
News summary of article:
How a fitness class made 112 people sick | CNN
South Korea's aggressive testing and contact tracing program has given the country remarkable control of Covid-19, with the ability to respond quickly to new outbreaks, writes Kent Sepkowitzwww.cnn.com
Article:
Cluster of Coronavirus Disease Associated with Fitness Dance Classes, South Korea
COVID-19 Cluster Associated with Fitness Classeswwwnc.cdc.gov
I have a lot of problems with the 'clap to thank' essential workers campaigns. I think it's a cheap way for governments and corporations to pass the 'responsibility of gratitude' to the public instead of doing the right thing. You know, providing proper PPE, work conditions, and hazard pay. It's great that guys like Captain Tom raised X amount for the NHS but the truth is, he shouldn't have to do that. Talk is cheap.The status outlook is bought to us by the originator of the clap for carers movement in the UK (where you go out on your doorstep at 8pm on a Thursday evening and clap for one minute as a mark of respect) who is calling for the tradition to end as it's going to be the 10th time next week and it is now for action to reward those working on the blunt end of the pandemic rather than just thanking them for it. They also stated in another interview it has become too politicized or used to carry unfocused messages "I think the narrative is starting to change and I don't want the clap to be negative."
Coronavirus: Clap for Carers should end, says founder
The nationwide applause has "had its moment" and should end after 10 weeks, Annemarie Plas says.www.bbc.co.uk
Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04).