Stanford Study Indicates Covid-19 Infection 50 to 85 Times More Common Than Thought

[treveller]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...S-36FI7fGTTVCyJbzgpAwV6qjuMeTAl2P7pWskYTJWJYI

This is good news. Immunity through infection is likely spreading much faster than was previously indicated. There are lots of qualifications with this study. More news coming soon it sounds like.

If sex workers can access antibody tests and test positive they should be able to go back to work.

 

[Mikehma]

Why is it called COVID-19?

I saw somewhere in another thread someone critical of someone not knowing why the disease casued by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is called COVID-19.

I couldn't say, or recall if I'd ever heard why, so I went and looked it up.

COVID-19 is an acronym that stands for COronaVirus Disease of 2019.

I'd rather be pooning and writing reviews, but ... :ballchain: COVID-19

 

[80watts]

Thats nice. What really matters if you have enough ventilators for the people that do get sick from pnuemonia like symptoms, caused by this virus.

Which is why everybody is hiding at home.... watching the tube, while driving every one in the house insane, so they can keep their sanity......

And just cause you have the antibodies, doesn't mean you still are not infectious.....

 

[treveller]

T
And just cause you have the antibodies, doesn't mean you still are not infectious.....

Uh Ya. It pretty much does mean you are not infectious. That's the way it works with every other infectious disease, as certainly as anything is in medicine. This applies in any case where the person is not currently sick with the infection. You get infected, you develop antibodies, you get better or die. As long as there are enough antibodies in your system you are pretty much immune. Feel free to cite and explain any exceptions. They would be interesting to hear about, along with how common such cases are.

You are right about the ventilators though. It isn't the number infected that counts, it's how close you are to exhausting the available intensive care and ventilator resources.

 

[Miss Hunter]

Uh Ya. It pretty much does mean you are not infectious. That's the way it works with every other infectious disease, as certainly as anything is in medicine. This applies in any case where the person is not currently sick with the infection. You get infected, you develop antibodies, you get better or die. As long as there are enough antibodies in your system you are pretty much immune. Feel free to cite and explain any exceptions. They would be interesting to hear about, along with how common such cases are.

You are right about the ventilators though. It isn't the number infected that counts, it's how close you are to exhausting the available intensive care and ventilator resources.

HIV is one example of a virus that causes the body to produce antibodies, but these antibodies are ineffective at eliminating the virus and the person remains infectious.

There's so much we don't know about Covid-19. Scientists are still in the very early stages of learning about it. And an effective antibody test still needs to be developed. The ones on the market now are shoddy.

 

[Miss Hunter]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...S-36FI7fGTTVCyJbzgpAwV6qjuMeTAl2P7pWskYTJWJYI

This is good news. Immunity through infection is likely spreading much faster than was previously indicated. There are lots of qualifications with this study. More news coming soon it sounds like.

If sex workers can access antibody tests and test positive they should be able to go back to work.

What exactly do you mean by "there are lots of qualifications with this study" ?

The study hasn't been peer reviewed and they used shoddy antibody tests.

More research needs to be done. You're putting your cart before your horse.

 

[JimDandy]

What exactly do you mean by "there are lots of qualifications with this study" ?

The study hasn't been peer reviewed and they used shoddy antibody tests.

More research needs to be done. You're putting your cart before your horse.

Miss Hunter - you normally appear to have a good handle on the English language, but I think in this case you missed the point. When the word "qualifications" is used in the manner that the op has used it, it means exactly what you are arguing, in other words, there are issues with the study. See:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/qualification

and look specifically at the example:

"The doctor said I can leave hospital today, but with the qualification that I have to come back every day to get the dressing changed."

Cheers,
JD

 

[treveller]

"The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated."

"Other large-scale sample studies are currently underway. The National Institute of Health is testing 10,000 people. UC Berkeley is going to test 5,000 healthy volunteers to see if they have, or have ever had, the coronavirus."

I don't remember anything in the story indicating the antibody tests were "shoddy". True, the fingerpoke tests are limited and new but the 50 to 85 fold increase in estimated exposure is substantial.

 

[overdone]

and yet we're still not anywhere near a 1% death rate world wide

7.5-7.8 billion estimated population

204,000 dead

0.0000271 times 7.5 billion to get 204,000

it doesn't even reach anywhere near 1%, hell even a 0.05% in the supposed worst hit places like Italy, Spain, the US

too bad we don't have adults in charge

remember the good old days 2 months ago

when 80% didn't get much worse than a cold if that

look at the modeling curves, the worst case has a same death total as the good one's

end the same timeline

we're just delaying the inevitable

there isn't going to be any vaccine anytime soon

 

[treveller]

Overdone, you shouldn't be using the death numbers. As I understand it, the Stanford study compared the number of people who were shown to have had covid through an antibody blood test to the number of people who tested positive with a swab for virus particles. The number of deaths had nothing to do with it. Read the article and try again with new numbers.

 

[CanineCowboy]

Uh Ya. It pretty much does mean you are not infectious. That's the way it works with every other infectious disease, as certainly as anything is in medicine. This applies in any case where the person is not currently sick with the infection. You get infected, you develop antibodies, you get better or die. As long as there are enough antibodies in your system you are pretty much immune. Feel free to cite and explain any exceptions. They would be interesting to hear about, along with how common such cases are.

You are right about the ventilators though. It isn't the number infected that counts, it's how close you are to exhausting the available intensive care and ventilator resources.

Example - the common cold

 

[CanineCowboy]

"The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated."

"Other large-scale sample studies are currently underway. The National Institute of Health is testing 10,000 people. UC Berkeley is going to test 5,000 healthy volunteers to see if they have, or have ever had, the coronavirus."

I don't remember anything in the story indicating the antibody tests were "shoddy". True, the fingerpoke tests are limited and new but the 50 to 85 fold increase in estimated exposure is substantial.

The major criticism of the study was that the subjects weren't random, they were self selecting. The subjects responded to an online request for people to self select to be part of the study. Imagine a genital herpes study that offered you a free test for herpes - if you thought you may have herpes, but have never been tested, you would be much more likely to participate in the study than if you were a virgin. The results of the study if then applied to the general public would greatly skew the instance of herpes.

Even Bonnie Henry has directly commented on this study, it's lack of subject selection and it relying on non-accurate tests.

There is such a desire for 'good news' right now that weak studies and hypothesis are being reported before 'good science' can validate them (i.e. taking hydroxychloroquine, drinking Lysol, suntanning, herd immunity)

 

[Miss Hunter]

The major criticism of the study was that the subjects weren't random, they were self selecting. The subjects responded to an online request for people to self select to be part of the study. Imagine a genital herpes study that offered you a free test for herpes - if you thought you may have herpes, but have never been tested, you would be much more likely to participate in the study than if you were a virgin. The results of the study if then applied to the general public would greatly skew the instance of herpes.

Even Bonnie Henry has directly commented on this study, it's lack of subject selection and it relying on non-accurate tests.

There is such a desire for 'good news' right now that weak studies and hypothesis are being reported before 'good science' can validate them (i.e. taking hydroxychloroquine, drinking Lysol, suntanning, herd immunity)

To be fair... Getting a random sample from a population is very difficult when conducting research.

How would researchers be able to grab a sample in which every member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected?

Most studies can be knocked for not having a truly random sample. It is what it is..

 

[westwoody]

You get infected, you develop antibodies, you get better or die

There will be a period between the initial infection and the point where the body produces enough antibodies to eliminate the virus.

During this time the infected person may be both distributing the virus and producing antibodies.

There are also those who produce antibodies and die anyway, all the while shedding the virus.

 

[Miss Hunter]

The real issue here is we still don't know to what, if at all, extent past exposure means for immunity. And every test on the market currently is shoddy.

 

[Miss Hunter]

But I think its great that researchers are taking their time to study Covid-19, even with the limited resources we have.

Getting to the bottom of this will take time.

 

[treveller]

Lots of good points about the limitations of the Stanford study.

On the immunity question, you would think there was little immunity developed when you have a cold or the flu given that you can have several colds over the winter and the flu can repeat every year. This will in part be because there are many different cold and flu viruses and all of them are mutating. The recurring infections are likely due to different viruses rather than a failure to develop immunity. This may mean we will not develop a useful immunity to covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) and there may be no herd immunity. I saw a chart describing the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus since December and it showed there are already a hundred or so distinct genetic variants from the original virus. This doesn't mean there will be no immunity through infection. It means we don't know much for sure yet.

 

[Mikehma]

I'm curious when they will have enough data to tie the various strains or mutations to case severity and if there is enough common to the variants for a common vaccine. It might take years to know enough.

 

[overdone]

Overdone, you shouldn't be using the death numbers.

of course you should, that's what all the irrational emotional thinking is based upon

first we were told we needed time for the health care system to be able to handle the peak, which didn't happen, at least in Canada

how much more time do they need?

it never happened in Sweden either, where they didn't do a full lockdown, they just told people to act like adults

we'll never be able to test everyone

just watched a clown from the City of Edmonton, almost crying cause he had to lay off some more people today

he did it a couple of weeks ago too

this is the type of moron we have in power

gov't workers, so sad, cause they don't qualify for EI, CERB, won't be hired back eventually

we need adults to make decisions, based on reality, not models that so far have been no where near accurate

here's the only fact they need

PEOPLE ARE NOT DYING IN NUMBERS EVEN CLOSE TO ARMAGEDDON

just look at those dead

50% in old folks homes, long term care

the "professionals" couldn't even take the most basic steps to take care of the most vulnerable

which a 6yr old could have foreseen

and we're continuing to take advice from those who have been wrong at every step, 6 days late

people are going to die, it's just a matter of when, over what timeline

SARS, a covid, no vaccine

past is good predictor of future, it's been almost 2 decades without a SARS vaccine

nature is going to take it's course, we're just delaying it

we can't stay locked up, bankrupting our society for 2 yrs

what about the others, who will die due to other situations caused by this?

the people not getting healthcare who could have lived?

those who will commit suicide due to despair, economically, socially, emotionally?

they are not doing surgeries, transplants, letting organs go to waste because of this

AB, BC, haven't had more than a 100 in AB's case, 150 in BC's case in the hospital

WE don't have 25% over 65 like Italy

we don't have 12 million people packed in one city like China

even like New York City

who wasn't overwhelmed like they believed they would be, remember the "modeling"

everyone in New York was going to die

irrational emotion

it's time for the adults to start taking charge, based on reason

that some will die, most, almost all won't

just take all the 70/80/90 yr olds out of the equation

then you re-do the "numbers"

would you then think it justifies cratering our economy

taking away people's healthcare/liberty/ability to live?

cause they aren't/weren't even smart enough/able to protect those that a 6yr old would have

and we're still taking advice from these incompetent people


just look at the stupid "essential" business that are allowed to be open, yet others aren't

since when are fast food joints "essential"

look at the arbitrary way they are deciding things

control freaks thinking they can fuck with nature then contain it

people will die, it's just a matter of when

they can study it all they want

you can't stop living for 2 yrs till it peters out

 

[treveller]

of course you should, that's what all the irrational emotional thinking is based upon...

Overdone, your first comment confirms my understanding that the death numbers are irrelevant in terms of the Stanford study and misleading generally. Focusing on them leads to irrational emotional thinking.

The rest of your comments contain so many misrepresentations that I won't even try to make sense of them.