Stanford study suggests coronavirus is more widespread than realized

spectator.us ^ | 4/17/20 | Ross Clark

[a little elbow grease]

If SARS-Cov-2 is already endemic in the population, there is nothing we can do to stop it — but no great reason to try to stop it, either

Another day, and yet more evidence has appeared that could indicate the number of people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, might be vastly higher than official figures suggest. This time a Californian study suggests the figure in one county could be more than 50 times the number who knew they had had the virus.

A team from Stanford University and other colleges recruited volunteers in Santa Clara County via Facebook adverts and produced a sample of 3,000 representatives of the county as a whole. They were then invited for blood tests to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus. The result was positive in 1.5 percent of cases. Adjusting for age, gender and ethnicity the results suggest that 2.8 percent of people in the county had already had the virus. That might not seem many, but at the time of the study — on April 4 and 5 — only 1,094 people in the county were recorded as having the virus. The study suggests the real figure is between 48,000 and 81,000.

Like many studies which have been pre-published in order to aid understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic, the paper produced by the Stanford-led team has not yet been peer-reviewed. Moreover, it took place in a part of the United States where very few people have so far tested positive with the virus. It would be interesting to see the experiment repeated in New York City, where recorded infections are far higher.

[a little elbow grease]

Okay ...........then open everything up!

[Buckeye McFrog]

That appears to be where this is headed.

[Bob434]

yes and even flu numbers are way higher than they say because most people don’t even bother reporting it- most people get it mildly, and so it gets under-reported- -

[Paul46360]

YES..by the end of the year..it will be reported we all experienced it. Why is CALI #’s less then NYC??? Herd immunity???

[kiryandil]

Sunlight (vitamin D) and less mass transit.

[mylife]

Tx is opening at the end of the month!

[RomanSoldier19]

ok so solitary confinement is the only option

[Qout]

15% in New York had the virus 2 weeks ago.
“Between March 22 and April 4, those hospitals screened 215 pregnant women for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), and 33 women, or 15%, tested positive. Of these who tested positive, 29 women — or nearly 14% — showed no symptoms.” https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-in-pregnant-woman-high-nyc.html

[cherry]

reasonable people would have come to this conclusion a long time ago....

think about it....the virus ONLY goes after old people in a nursing home?.....NOT!

basically, perhaps intentions started out fine, but somewhere along the line the RAT leftist have seized this "opportunity" to grab power over everything in our lives....

do people really think Cuomo wants to prevent deaths?...he does not....infact, I'm sure he's thinking that the more little old grannies that die in a nursing home the more gallant he looks for "trying to stop it"....

[Sarah Barracuda]

Because its been in California since Mid December..100 percent guaranteed..they gotta antibody test folks here its been around, non stop flights from Wuhan from December to San Fran and LAX, and we are supposed to believe NONE of them were infected..please

[God luvs America]

no surprise here...

[AndyJackson]

The result was positive in 1.5 percent of cases.

What is the rate of false positives with this test?

[exDemMom]

A team from Stanford University and other colleges recruited volunteers in Santa Clara County via Facebook adverts and produced a sample of 3,000 representatives of the county as a whole. They were then invited for blood tests to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus. The result was positive in 1.5 percent of cases. Adjusting for age, gender and ethnicity the results suggest that 2.8 percent of people in the county had already had the virus. That might not seem many, but at the time of the study — on April 4 and 5 — only 1,094 people in the county were recorded as having the virus. The study suggests the real figure is between 48,000 and 81,000.

So, a lot of people tested for antibodies with a non-validated test came up positive. It looks to me like they're detecting people who have had ordinary coronavirus infections--in other words, it's detecting people who had colds.

I know the narrative that quadzillions of people have already had Covid-19 and we therefore can stop the quarantines is popular, but it is not supported by facts. In order for Covid-19 to be so widespread already, it would have to be at least an order of magnitude more contagious than the common cold (it *is* a cold virus). It would have to be more contagious than the most contagious virus known, measles. That just is not biologically or epidemiologically plausible.

There is not an approved, validated test yet.

[Cboldt]

-- 33 women, or 15%, tested positive. Of these who tested positive, 29 women -- or nearly 14% -- showed no symptoms." --

33 tested positive. 29 of 33 showed no symptoms. Why, by golly, that is nearly 14%!! ROTFL.

[a little elbow grease]

(snip) ---"Last week, I reported a similar study from the town of Gangelt in north-western Germany where 15 percent of the population were found to have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Were that to be reflected in the wider population, it would still mean we were a long way short of the 60 percent infection rate which scientific advisers originally considered necessary for ‘herd immunity’ of the population. But it would mean we were well on the way."

"That scientists in Germany and California have been able to perform antibody tests on good-sized samples of the population yet again raises the question: why have we still not performed such studies elsewhere? One of the problems, we are told, is that antibody tests have proved inaccurate. The UK government bought a job lot of antibody tests from China and then decided they were useless. But surely we have the facilities to perform high-quality laboratory tests of the sort used in the Stanford and Gangelt studies? Isn’t it about time we got moving on this?"

________

The more I read of this article (and others) the more I think that:

.... NEARLY ALL THESE "EXPERTS" SHOULD BE PLACED IN A LARGE ROOM WITH A GOOD NUMBER OF VERY HUNGRY WILD CATS.

****************

OPEN THINGS UP

[Buckeye McFrog]

Rush Limbaugh is correct when he points out that New York State adopted social distancing only two days before California.

Fauci’s mitigation cannot be the answer.

[all the best]

This came along just after the impeachment campaign collapsed. A perfect opportunity to destroy the economy and Trump’s claim to reelection. Americans readily went along as vast majority want safety, comfort, security over messy ol’ freedom.
Whatever the reality, no doubt media overhyped. I would guess ratings have gone through the roof. Folks at home and now hooked on fear porn.

[a little elbow grease]

Fauci’s mitigation cannot be the answer.

_______________

Fauci should go back to delivering drugs for his father.

[Paladin2]

And false negatives?

I notice that there is NO discussion of either value for all of the current tests discussed in the media.

[Black Agnes]

Vitamin D3 levels, fewer obese people and much lower initial viral load in the infected people.

Sitting next to an infected person for 30 minutes on that Metro North train in to the city is WAY different than brushing against an infected person in the produce section.

And D3 levels are likely much higher even in the ‘indoors’ type people. Just walking to your car at lunch gets you a dose of D3 unlike NYC that’s cloudy, cold and north of 40N.

We’ll also see that the strain predominant in SoCal is on a different phylogenetic branch than the one in NYC.