IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 3, 2020 12:01:29 GMT
Thanks Bernie I am not defending his views, I am defending his expertise and right to express views without the vitriol he received. That's how science and understanding progresses. He didn't predict 1% would be infected, that was just a scenario. The US obviously has much higher rates (as does most of the world - it soon became pretty clear to everyone that more than 1% would be infected globally). I don't think the IFR estimates are too far out, and definitely nowhere near an order of magnitude, it's just the % of population infected is high. But also the US has other factors increasing the IFR and death rates - high rates of medical illnesses, high obesity, older population, unjoined up elderly care and poor health care for many. So if it is 0.3% in Iceland, it will likely be higher than 0.3% in the US as a whole. As I said, there is no one "true" IFR. The issue for me is that it is difficult to have any sort of rational debate as it rapidly becomes emotional, polarised and politicised. Sure, people are afraid and angry, but we all know that the best decisions are not made when in those states of mind. Yes, but a scenario to which he explicitly ascribed ~10,000 US deaths should it arise. So their actual 2% infection rate should - according to him - have led to about 20,000 deaths, rather than the 190,000 they've suffered. The figures did not support his iffy analysis back in March (as I said on this forum at the time) and they don't support him today. While I agree he has the right to express his views, a statistician of his calibre and stature ought to be apologising to his country for misleading them so. Remember that his March paper went on to describe how SARS2 should have warranted no more media attention than a second rate ball game... I don't believe it is that low - many undiagnosed/asymptomatic infections, probably muliples of those diagnosed. And for the US the IFR is likely to be a bit higher than 0.3% for the reasons I stated. Whether you agree with it or not (and most people don't, hence why we had them), it's not an unreasonable view to suggest that European style universal lockdowns were an over reaction/sledgehammer to crack a nut approach that has not made that much difference in the long term, factoring in people's natural behavioural change (further encouraged by massive public heath campaigns), the adverse health effects both short and long term of lockdown, and the need to keep going with meaningful changes for probably years rather than a couple of months. People both over and underestimated how bad the pandemic would be. Both directions of error are pilloried by those with opposing views. I'm in the middle, slightly towards the there has been an over-reaction side as I have seen how harmful lockdown has been to the provision of general healthcare, but also because I think alternative more effective approaches (focusing on protecting care homes, massive ramping up of testing) were missed early on due to misplaced priorities (and perhaps panic, and probably some incompetence). And because many of the approaches taken have little or no evidence that they work, but were done because "something had to be done" and the public were screaming for it.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 1,692
|
Post by benaj on Sept 3, 2020 15:03:37 GMT
Can somone explain what really affect the accuracy of testing kit?
Recent mass testing in Hong Kong has not shown any false negative nor positive cases according to the article below
Out of 128000 samples, found 10 positive cases, no false positive cases nor false positive cases yet.
Why on earth the FDA and other sources reported such a hugh margin of error for the same testing kit used in Hong Kong?
Forgot to mention, 128000 results were analysed by a mobile team from China.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 4, 2020 11:46:52 GMT
This interesting If you test IgA (as well as IgG and IgM), rates of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 are massively higher. Taken together with the knowledge that a significant proportion do not seroconvert, and that T-cells appear also to be relevant (possibly with cross-reactivity from other coronavirus infections), this implies: - Many more have had mild/asymptomatic Covid that thought hitherto; - Infection mortality rate is lower than previous estimates might suggest (welcome back 0.3% again?) - Infection related immunity may be higher than thought, and contributing to the decreases in mortality seen in countries with greater/longer exposures to the virus. www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?"A recent seroprevalence survey of 1473 residents (79% of the local population) in Ischgl, Austria, using a combined IgG and IgA approach found SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 42.4% of those tested, far higher than rates in previous population based surveys... Similarly, IgA antibodies were detected in 11% of 1862 people sampled from the general population in Luxembourg, whereas IgG antibodies were found in only 1.9%."
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 4, 2020 11:59:45 GMT
This interesting If you test IgA (as well as IgG and IgM), rates of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 are massively higher. Taken together with the knowledge that a significant proportion do not seroconvert, and that T-cells appear also to be relevant (possibly with cross-reactivity from other coronavirus infections), this implies: - Many more have had mild/asymptomatic Covid that thought hitherto; - Infection mortality rate is lower than previous estimates might suggest (welcome back 0.3% again?) - Infection related immunity may be higher than thought, and contributing to the decreases in mortality seen in countries with greater/longer exposures to the virus. www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?"A recent seroprevalence survey of 1473 residents (79% of the local population) in Ischgl, Austria, using a combined IgG and IgA approach found SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 42.4% of those tested, far higher than rates in previous population based surveys... Similarly, IgA antibodies were detected in 11% of 1862 people sampled from the general population in Luxembourg, whereas IgG antibodies were found in only 1.9%." For us lesser mortals, could you explain IgG vs IgA i.e. what that means ?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 4, 2020 12:08:49 GMT
This interesting If you test IgA (as well as IgG and IgM), rates of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 are massively higher. Taken together with the knowledge that a significant proportion do not seroconvert, and that T-cells appear also to be relevant (possibly with cross-reactivity from other coronavirus infections), this implies: - Many more have had mild/asymptomatic Covid that thought hitherto; - Infection mortality rate is lower than previous estimates might suggest (welcome back 0.3% again?) - Infection related immunity may be higher than thought, and contributing to the decreases in mortality seen in countries with greater/longer exposures to the virus. www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?"A recent seroprevalence survey of 1473 residents (79% of the local population) in Ischgl, Austria, using a combined IgG and IgA approach found SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 42.4% of those tested, far higher than rates in previous population based surveys... Similarly, IgA antibodies were detected in 11% of 1862 people sampled from the general population in Luxembourg, whereas IgG antibodies were found in only 1.9%." For us lesser mortals, could you explain IgG vs IgA i.e. what that means ? Different types of antibodies. IgM = early blood antibody. IgM = late/long lasting blood antibody. IgA = antibody mostly in mucous membranes and secretions - eg mouth, eyes, throat, nose, lungs, digestive tract. (and for completeness IgE - allergic type antibodies) Seems kind of obvious one would have wanted to know about IgA now they mention it.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 1,692
|
Post by benaj on Sept 4, 2020 12:22:47 GMT
Can somone explain what really affect the accuracy of testing kit?
Recent mass testing in Hong Kong has not shown any false negative nor positive cases according to the article below
Out of 128000 samples, found 10 positive cases, no false positive cases nor false positive cases yet.
Why on earth the FDA and other sources reported such a hugh margin of error for the same testing kit used in Hong Kong?
Forgot to mention, 128000 results were analysed by a mobile team from China.
I found this article about the testing kit used in Hong Kong wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-162Just a misprint from manufacturer instruction or deliberate mistake ?🤔 It's surprising to see the team from China processing the samples in Hong Kong with perfect consistency.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by travolta on Sept 5, 2020 18:23:50 GMT
Anybody else here been invited to take part in the Covid Survey? I did,this day receive a big pkt from HMG inviting the household to register. Each of us will be paid £450 in vouchers if we stick with it. 220.000 households are invited (Imagine how much this will cost?) A caseworker will visit (fully togged up in PC) and we will swab ourselves. One follow up a week for n number of months. (They wont come in .It happens on the doorstep,go figure). I'll keep you posted......Imagine a household of 10x £450? www.ons.gov.uk/surveys/informationforhouseholdsandindividuals/householdandindividualsurveys/covid19infectionsurveycis
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Sept 5, 2020 21:17:56 GMT
This interesting If you test IgA (as well as IgG and IgM), rates of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 are massively higher. Taken together with the knowledge that a significant proportion do not seroconvert, and that T-cells appear also to be relevant (possibly with cross-reactivity from other coronavirus infections), this implies: - Many more have had mild/asymptomatic Covid that thought hitherto; - Infection mortality rate is lower than previous estimates might suggest (welcome back 0.3% again?) - Infection related immunity may be higher than thought, and contributing to the decreases in mortality seen in countries with greater/longer exposures to the virus. www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?"A recent seroprevalence survey of 1473 residents (79% of the local population) in Ischgl, Austria, using a combined IgG and IgA approach found SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 42.4% of those tested, far higher than rates in previous population based surveys... Similarly, IgA antibodies were detected in 11% of 1862 people sampled from the general population in Luxembourg, whereas IgG antibodies were found in only 1.9%." I'd recommend reading the "rapid response" from an epidemiologist published yesterday.... www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364/rapid-responsesIndeed, I checked this for myself (see here, page 15): 26/(544+38+36+26+6) = 4% My interpretation - every little helps but not a game-changer. It's worth remembering that Ischgl (the Austrian ski resort) is thought of as ground zero in Europe: ‘Everyone was drenched in the virus’: was this Austrian ski resort a Covid-19 ground zero?www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/everyone-was-drenched-in-the-virus-was-this-austrian-ski-resort-a-covid-19-ground-zeroThe study from Luxembourg may be explained by the specifivity of 89.2% of the IgA test when compared to 97.8% for the IgG test. The European CDC has a useful page on immune responses... www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/latest-evidence/immune-responses
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Sept 5, 2020 21:34:52 GMT
Anybody else here been invited to take part in the Covid Survey? I did,this day receive a big pkt from HMG inviting the household to register. Each of us will be paid £450 in vouchers if we stick with it. 220.000 households are invited (Imagine how much this will cost?) A caseworker will visit (fully togged up in PC) and we will swab ourselves. One follow up a week for n number of months. (They wont come in .It happens on the doorstep,go figure). I'll keep you posted......Imagine a household of 10x £450? www.ons.gov.uk/surveys/informationforhouseholdsandindividuals/householdandindividualsurveys/covid19infectionsurveycisYeh. Also amazed at the £450 maximum compo, if they do 220k households that's about half a million people, probably the cost will be minimum £1Bn since as you say the many tests are hand delivered over 12months. Given the low level of virus circulating in the population at the moment, the expected cost per positive test works out mind bogglingly high! PS actually signing up after getting the invite has proved much harder than it should be, with several calls needed to different teams who all seem to have big delays in responding.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by travolta on Sept 6, 2020 12:41:55 GMT
I hung on for 10 mins.... it was an 0800 number. They played me some Mozart. I see you can donate your fee to the NHS.....hmmm.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 6, 2020 16:50:34 GMT
Thanks dan1 yeah, looks like the editorial overcooked things quite a bit! still, add on some IgA and T-cell immunity, with cross reactivity from other coronaviruses, and you have a significant amount of infection-related immunity in the areas most hit to date. ominous for those that escaped the worst first time round if there isn't a vaccine to add some vaccine-related immunity before the winter season begins. Interesting thread here on "herd immunity" TL;DR: "Second waves are thus unlikely in regions where Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) has probably been reached like Stockholm, Bruxelles and NYC, and very likely in regions that have not been hit hard yet."
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Sept 6, 2020 21:37:08 GMT
This has been puzzling me recently: why is it that China has taken the direction it has to eliminate (zero-Covid if you like) the virus?
Is it for one, or a combination of, the following: - Medical : not just those that die but the long term health of survivors (I assume they don't know anything we don't!) - Economic : lingering infections reduce consumption etc. - Political : just because they can, in contrast to the West where we can't eliminate the virus (with small exceptions) / a projection of power if you will (seen that footage of Wuhan pool parties)
Why?
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Sept 6, 2020 22:09:49 GMT
Indeed. He'll make an interesting case study regarding long term effects of the virus. A 5% drop in lung function may not be picked up in a regular Joe but would be disastrous for a 30+ elite sports person. Future results will be the acid test. He has done it.
Novak Djokovic made history on Saturday, defeating Milos Raonic 1-6, 6-3, 6-4 to win the Western & Southern Open and complete his second Career Golden Masters
I wasn't counting on petulance when discussing future results!
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 1,692
|
Post by benaj on Sept 7, 2020 6:01:25 GMT
This has been puzzling me recently: why is it that China has taken the direction it has to eliminate (zero-Covid if you like) the virus? Is it for one, or a combination of, the following: - Medical : not just those that die but the long term health of survivors (I assume they don't know anything we don't!) - Economic : lingering infections reduce consumption etc. - Political : just because they can, in contrast to the West where we can't eliminate the virus (with small exceptions) / a projection of power if you will (seen that footage of Wuhan pool parties) Why? In short, China is reaping significant economic and social benefits from improvements in governance by strong central power and limited freedoms. Although China has not demonstrated eliminating the virus yet, but many parts of China including Hubei and Beijing are zero-covid. Looking at neighbouring Asian countries like Thailand, South Korea, and Singapore, they have taken serious measures to "control" the spread of COVID. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Koreavery different to the "Stay alert -> Control the virus -> Save lives" strategy.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 7, 2020 8:53:25 GMT
This has been puzzling me recently: why is it that China has taken the direction it has to eliminate (zero-Covid if you like) the virus? Is it for one, or a combination of, the following: - Medical : not just those that die but the long term health of survivors (I assume they don't know anything we don't!) - Economic : lingering infections reduce consumption etc. - Political : just because they can, in contrast to the West where we can't eliminate the virus (with small exceptions) / a projection of power if you will (seen that footage of Wuhan pool parties) Why? In short, China is reaping significant economic and social benefits from improvements in governance by strong central power and limited freedoms. Although China has not demonstrated eliminating the virus yet, but many parts of China including Hubei and Beijing are zero-covid. Looking at neighbouring Asian countries like Thailand, South Korea, and Singapore, they have taken serious measures to "control" the spread of COVID. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Koreavery different to the "Stay alert -> Control the virus -> Save lives" strategy. Knowing people from South Korea, then the drastic response was not lockdown, but how they track and trace - you have to give up any semblance of privacy that we in the West consider important - they will track your phone to see where you have been, track your bank account to see where you have spent money, make your details publicly available if you are suspected of having coronavirus exposure. Without any ability to opt out. So yes very different, but it just wouldn't be acceptable in the West.
|
|